My argument is that all other variables removed, a simple metagame is superior to a complex metagame, which would unnecessarily confuse people and deter them from playing. Furthermore, bans should really be considered if what they are banning is something that is gamebreaking - the alternate to that is banning things in the name of creating a "better metagame", which is completely subjective and would result in great confusion and anger as people see unbroken things banned in the name of making a better metagame. To put it quite simply, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Evasion: Hit or Miss?
- Thread starter Veedrock
- Start date
I still agree with Hip that this kind of strategy will likely have problems actually doing anything besides annoy people. Wish CM Jirachi sets up on it for free, Weezing can Haze it, Machamp can handle it obviously, Celebi can just throw out Leech Seeds all day, etc..Veedrock said:
And I agree with Kay.
I don't see why we're so worried about evasion so much. I think dragon dance is a much bigger problem. I mean, with one move and a Pokemon can outspeed a lot of it's counters and has an extra attack stat to use! Imagine how deadly a dragon dance Gyrados could be with a set like (Dragon Dance, stone edge/ice fang, earthquake, waterfall). Only very few common Pokemon can properly counter it once it sets up. Intimidate and an earthquake immunity can help cause switches very easilly. There is no priority electric move to ensure a kill once it sets up!
Sorry for the sarcasm but I'm tired of rampant theorymon that's going on. Sure a lot of sets look good on paper but in reality there a lot harder to set up. Sure a few sets could cause changes in the metagame, but I think it would manage. If you get 3 or more boosts passed to any Pokemon it's usually good game anyway, wether there is a double team, speed, or attack.
Sorry for the sarcasm but I'm tired of rampant theorymon that's going on. Sure a lot of sets look good on paper but in reality there a lot harder to set up. Sure a few sets could cause changes in the metagame, but I think it would manage. If you get 3 or more boosts passed to any Pokemon it's usually good game anyway, wether there is a double team, speed, or attack.
if you want to ban DD then go and ban all the moves that annoy you and arent luck based. We might as well ban sketch. See my earlier post.
It's not our fault if you have a Dragon Dance weakness. Sorry.
darkie, if you read this... you know what i mean when i say lol 72 hours
It's not our fault if you have a Dragon Dance weakness. Sorry.
darkie, if you read this... you know what i mean when i say lol 72 hours
Sarcasm... I don't have a problem with Dragon Dance. I was using it as an example of how people could over-exhagerrate a moveset.
To complain about a weakness that you can do away with so easily is very silly...
There are many more threats that much more threatening than your DD complex...
You could just carry a hazer if it's that bad...
There are many more threats that much more threatening than your DD complex...
You could just carry a hazer if it's that bad...
I feel evasion is such a controversail issue it probably will never be tested. But I feel whats keeping it from testing is people not wanting to deal with the frustration of trying to hit something with evasion, and claiming that they'd lose to unskilled players spamming DT, when I think they themselves are the unskilled ones for not packing a counter to an obvious threat like that. Kind of like how some people complaing about X pokemon being broken and instead of packing a counter for it or abusing it themselves they just complain. There ARE counters to DT. Machamp usage may or may not spike as he doesnt care about you spending 6 turns boosting your evasion when he can come in and easily punch you out and make you waste your six turns. Heck, Odor Sleuth Donphan might finally be used with roar, and it'll benifit from not being spin blocked. Isn't that increasing diversity?
This is a tricky issue. For the most part, evasion is "hax", and one of the most annoying kinds. However, it is...
A: Not unstoppable. (Always-hit attacks, No Guard Machamp, Haze) Though I admit the solutions aren't terribly common in today's metagame.
B: Not dependable. If you "cheat" the ladder with it, your luck is absurd and you could do just as well (if not better) with a team including Togekiss, Jirachi, and Dunsparce.
C: Might not be abused like you'd expect it would. Most people wouldn't use it even if it was allowed (except maybe on sand veil/snow cloak pokemon) because it's often not worth the time or moveslot generally. Very few people post Battle Tower RMTs including Double Team even though it is allowed there, because it's honestly a hit-or-miss sort of thing that most players don't want to depend on. Successful players know consistency is the key.
I wouldn't mind evasion being tested because I don't think it'll be as bad as everyone says, but rather will be regarded as a novelty option that many people will not want to try out anyway. And if we have to include a Machamp and/or a Hazer on our teams, so be it. They're already on (edit) some teams as it is.
Besides, no one complains about sand veil brightpowder Gliscor...
A: Not unstoppable. (Always-hit attacks, No Guard Machamp, Haze) Though I admit the solutions aren't terribly common in today's metagame.
B: Not dependable. If you "cheat" the ladder with it, your luck is absurd and you could do just as well (if not better) with a team including Togekiss, Jirachi, and Dunsparce.
C: Might not be abused like you'd expect it would. Most people wouldn't use it even if it was allowed (except maybe on sand veil/snow cloak pokemon) because it's often not worth the time or moveslot generally. Very few people post Battle Tower RMTs including Double Team even though it is allowed there, because it's honestly a hit-or-miss sort of thing that most players don't want to depend on. Successful players know consistency is the key.
I wouldn't mind evasion being tested because I don't think it'll be as bad as everyone says, but rather will be regarded as a novelty option that many people will not want to try out anyway. And if we have to include a Machamp and/or a Hazer on our teams, so be it. They're already on (edit) some teams as it is.
Besides, no one complains about sand veil brightpowder Gliscor...
Perhaps if evasion is considered to be tested, it can be tested along with OHKO moves. Evasion makes OHKO moves less likely to hit meanwhile moves like Lock-on force double teamers to flee. Then again I doubt people will ever allow that to happen since OHKO moves are a whole other beast.
ohko moves are unaffected by evasion and accuracy modifers
Forgive me for theorymoning, but I imagine something such as a Shuckle w/ Encore/Toxic/Rest/Double Team would be very annoying. It's the best mixed wall under sandstorm and it can just stall out PP/toxic stall so easily, and you can encore set uppers or people trying to taunt you (dear god taunt and roar missing >_<).
But that set is bad. Yeah you can encore stat uppers but that doesn't exactly net you anything, it's not like you're Wobb and can force them to stay in as you switch to your whatever counter. Even with Encore, it's still setup bait for Scizor and Luke, all other Steels beat it, Machamp crushes it, Poison-types beat it, things carrying substitute beat it (because Shuckle is really slow, right) and anyone who had two steel-types/poison-types/Zangoose I guess could just switch back and forth and stall you out of PP. You can say Magnezone support or what have you but Magnezone isn't exactly going to like being predicted and hit with Close Combat/Superpower/Fire Blast/Overheat/what have you, since it's not like you actually have any way to punish them for just throwing a move like that out there it out there given that you have no way to do anything to them. It's an irritation, but ultimately an ineffective one.
I don't even think Never-Miss moves should be even mentioned; they have only 60 BP
and 90 with stab.
Not only that, but anything that is Baton Passed to tends to hold 252hp/252atk or spatk.
Considering Tyranitar's ridiculously high offenses and defenses and resistances
to Aerial Ace, Shadow Punch and a high defence against magical Leaf...
Yep, let's just be liberal and keep evasion banned.
and 90 with stab.
Not only that, but anything that is Baton Passed to tends to hold 252hp/252atk or spatk.
Considering Tyranitar's ridiculously high offenses and defenses and resistances
to Aerial Ace, Shadow Punch and a high defence against magical Leaf...
Yep, let's just be liberal and keep evasion banned.
Honestly I just can't see evasion being that much of an issue. As so many people have already stated, it hurts something's versatility to use an evasion move and you have to be pretty lucky to be immediately successful with it, IE using it instead of a move that gets you something immediately will cost you more games than it wins you. Furthermore, if it does magically become broken when paired with oh let's say Baton Pass, then couldn't we just say "Okay, Baton Pass and Double Team on the same guy is illegal" or what have you? It's not exactly like there's no precedent, given the testing of Latias/Latios without Soul Dew.
I say keep them banned to minimize luck in the game. We can't remove luck entirely, and a small amount makes things interesting (Stone Edge, Will o Wisp, etc), but even testing these moves will lead to strategies based on luck.
I do not think there is no harm in testing. So far everything that has been tested has ended up in whatever position it was being tested for. I feel sometimes as if people just want to test things because they have nothing better to do.
I do not think there is no harm in testing. So far everything that has been tested has ended up in whatever position it was being tested for. I feel sometimes as if people just want to test things because they have nothing better to do.
Hm...from my understanding a majority of users agree to a test (reasoning is in the OP for the most part). As for the Machamp (or odor sleuth) argument, if we're forced to carry around Machamp or (essentially) lock on moves, especially when teams are having enough issues trying to find ways to counter the rest of the game alone, wouldn't that be a sign of centralization? (Now I know you won't be forced to carry it, but just using it as an example). Yes, it's increasing diversity, but at what cost? Stability.
I have to disagree. Compare a metagame to civilization. Is a simpler society a better one? Not necessarily; rules and "bans" (aka laws) provide safety and effeciency. They are agreed upon by most because it actually helps lead to better things. Take away these rules and make it simple, and we have wide spread chaos; every man for himself. Now rules aren't there to make things complex, they are there to make it "better" (like you said, that's subjective). Creating a better society is why laws are put into place, not necessarily because it's necessary to keep things orderly, but to try and make society healthy. You can associate this with the metagame; bans shouldn't only get rid of the essential issues, but rather try to make the metagame more efficient. (As for how it's subjective, majority rules =/ you have to have a majority agreement for a view to be taken for and affecting the entire community.)
(and for the record, I didn't imply that I'm against allowing it in my civilization comparison, though it appears that way. Just throwing the argument out there that if it being gone allows for a more fluid game, why not keep it that way).
I agree here, but if that's all it does, why introduce it? Yeah it won't harm anything, but it will cost a win here and there, and annoy people. Wouldn't keeping it out of the picture just keep things operating smoothly?
A) Precisely, they aren't common. And if you're forced to carry around 1-2 "counters" for double team, this effectively limits how well you can deal with the rest of the metagame, making evasion an issue of adding "too much" to the game and making it worse off (and this is why I agree the best way to deal with it is by ignoring it). People will want to remove it to make the metagame more manageable.
B) I agree that it's not dependable.
C) While you have no proof, I'm glad you gave your reasoning why you believe that. To see if it's actually correct, testing will need to be done.
And for your conclusion, I don't know where you get off by saying most people carry Machamp or a hazor.
I have had many complaints about Brightpowder Ninjask :P
Ack, please don't bring up OHKO moves. It's a totally different discussion. Now while using it as an example in some context is ok, mentioning that testing them with evasion will be beneficial in some way. For starters it skews results; people may not see just how broken one is. People are saying that double team is more of a novelty than not, so wouldn't that mean it's just not being tested thoroughly anywyas? This recommendation is similar to Garchomp; people say Latias and Latios will provide an effective "check" to Garchomp, being faster and being able to smash his weakness; in actuality, that's not what the initial test is all about (and as seen by the Lati@s split, combined testing may skew results).
Is that so? I'll have to get more confirmation on that. Again, don't turn this into an OHKO discussion please.
I can forgive you for theorymoning. Evasion is a very, very difficult thing to theorymon; just how much will it affect the metagame, how much will it be used, will it be broke, etc. Just try to think it through more clearly though (your set was already discussed, so I won't get into it).
Hey hey hey, that's not cool :( I've worked hard on this topic (and still am!)
I agree that never-miss should be ignored. The only ones ever used are Ariel Ace (only for specific things such as Heracross though) and Aura Sphere, a move learned by 2 pokemon allowed in OU.
No, I don't agree that we should "be liberal and keep evasion banned." Putting that attitude towards anything nets the game zero progress and the metagame eventually comes to a standstill.
Again, that's just people think. How can we be sure? While it is true that you need the RNG's "permission" to be successful rather than using some other stat-up move, it's also true that this may become widespread and centralizing.
Latias/os will likely be tested with Soul Dew if one or both make OU. So Baton Pass + Double Team is always something that can be tested rather than theorymoned (like Soul Dew). So yes, that's always a possibility if it does become broken, it can be a banned combination.
So from what I understand, the general concensus is that Double Team wouldn't affect the game too much and should be at least tested (and if it's added, no biggie as of yet). There are a couple of diehard theorymon-ers (no offense) that foresee disastrous results or a more haxy metagame.
Something else that needs brought up though! I posted this at the start but it's been widely ignored, and it needs to addressed ASAP
Obi said:
A majority of people have agreed on a test. But what are we looking for? Something like "do we like evasion in our metagame?" (hint, that's not the right answer). Clearly one of the biggest factors is "Does evasion make any pokemon too powerful?" But what else? Brain storm peeps!
This is precisely what I've been saying all along. When we allow a Pokemon into the metagame, the metagame benefits from the new Pokemon. We try to avoid banning Pokemon because allowing them gives us a new ingredient to use in a competitive metagame. In other words, we prefer not to ban Pokemon unless necessary since each Pokemon contributes its positive value to the tier in question. Evasion moves exist for one and only one reason: to intentionally hax your opponent. They have literally no other function. So to those saying "bans are undesirable", I'd like for you to be more specific. Why is banning evasion moves undesirable? What positive benefit of any kind do they contribute to the metagame?
I just don't get why we're drawing the line so arbitrarily. Shaymin-S adds too much hax, OHKO/evasion moves add too much hax, yet Choice Scarf Iron Head Jirachi isn't, nor is T-wave air slash Togekiss. If we REALLY wanted to minimize luck, everything that's not a 100% move should be banned. However, we don't REALLY want to minimize luck, because no one's calling for a ban on Stone Edge. What is it exactly that we want, then? A "certain amount of hax?" Our bans do not agree with each other right now.
The positive benefit to the metagame is fewer bans, why can't that be axiomatically accepted as a good thing? If we wanted to ban more and more things, eventually it would make worlds more sense to just go the way of AA's mod server and make the game better by actually modifying it.
The positive benefit to the metagame is fewer bans, why can't that be axiomatically accepted as a good thing? If we wanted to ban more and more things, eventually it would make worlds more sense to just go the way of AA's mod server and make the game better by actually modifying it.
At the expense of other ingredients.reachzero said:
What you're basically saying is that we should be biased against Pokemon/moves that we've already banned, even if based on nothing, and only actually "fix our mistakes" when they happen to be horrible enough (mistakes) to have actually damaged the game. Well certainly, if we were dumb enough to ban a Pokemon that actually would have ended up magically balancing all of DPP, that'd be a great excuse to unban it. But I can also have an immediately negative impression of, say, Manaphy, while still feeling that it deserves to be OU based on the fact that I don't foresee it actually breaking the metagame once everything completely settles down; furthermore, it might have certain merits that aren't obviously significant initially, but could possibly come into their own and actually improve competitive Pokemon in the long run, against everybody's current expectations. That's why we should avoid bans whenever it's not exceedingly obvious that something is broken, and it's why Colin once described the "ban when we don't like it" mentality as potentially "leading the game to shambles." Sadly, Colin never really justified that position without merely saying that "that's how all competitive games do it," at least to my knowledge.
As for the idea that "Evasion moves have no merit outside their ability to make matches more luck-based," Hipmonlee has already covered that a number of times in both this and I'm pretty sure even a PR thread on the subject.
The position you are ascribing to me is almost precisely the opposite of what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that every Pokemon always contributes to the metagame in some way. To follow your example, Manaphy would indeed contribute to the metagame in some way, as a bulky water/sweeper, etc. Whether it will actually negatively impact the metagame is a matter of theorymon. Why ban something unreasonably that could contribute in any way? I completely agree on this point. I am not asking anyone to be biased against allowing traditionally banned Pokemon, quite the opposite. Any Pokemon has positive qualities that contribute. The same cannot be said of evasion moves. They exist specifically and only to hax your opponent. Their only function is to make moves that would not otherwise miss do so a percentage of the time. Why does the item Quick Claw not exist on Shoddy? Admittedly, Brightpowder, Scope Lens, Razor Fang and King's Rock do exist, but I think we can all wish they didn't. Features that exist only to hax serve no positive benefit whatsoever to a competetive metagame.
I've never seen any proof of Deoxys-E being 'exceedingly' broken neither about Garchomp. In fact there is no way to proof it, that's why Tangerine can easily block all SR test arguments.
The only reason there ever was a pokemon banned is because the community doesn't like it. With the community i mean the opinion of those who have learned to argue well.
Again, Hipmonlee has plenty of good posts that suggest otherwise in my opinion.reachzero said:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1638573&postcount=129
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1638741&postcount=131
(and at least a couple I remember seeing in this thread)
I don't really think I could put it any better than him so I probably won't try.
I'm not saying it isn't subjective, just that it requires a lot more than theory or relatively short testing periods to decide whether something will have a long-term negative impact on the metagame. I didn't like the Deoxys ban because the DS set hardly even had a chance to "dominate," and Platinum changes were new at the time. The Garchomp ban was somewhat more reasonable because we had so much experience with it in a relatively static metagame (though obviously Platinum changes make me question that ban too).Mien. said: