-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Pokemon specific bans in OU
- Thread starter Aldaron
- Start date
It seems that this process would take a long time. My fear is that after all this happens, 5th GEN comes around and changes everything. Who is to say that if this is implemented it will be finished before 5th Gen comes out? It took a year before it was decided whether or not a single Pokemon [Latias] was uber. It will take much longer for this.
Personally, I don't agree with the concept of banning certain moves on certain Pokemon. This will only promote a far more centralized metagame. Although you break one of Garchomps arms and cut off his fins, he can still do shit load of damage with one arm and two legs. With this concept whenever something becomes hard to counter, a restraint will just be thrown over it. Players will no longer want to reveal their teams to the public and it will be hard to Wifi battle without mass confusion.
Personally, I don't agree with the concept of banning certain moves on certain Pokemon. This will only promote a far more centralized metagame. Although you break one of Garchomps arms and cut off his fins, he can still do shit load of damage with one arm and two legs. With this concept whenever something becomes hard to counter, a restraint will just be thrown over it. Players will no longer want to reveal their teams to the public and it will be hard to Wifi battle without mass confusion.
The time issue is really the most valid argument against this and it needs to be addressed.
The "arbitrary" argument is completely irrelevant. Our entire tiering system is arbitrary. Who's to say OU shouldn't be what Ubers currently is? The answer to this is that we tend to like a bit more diversity than Ubers can provide, but either way, it's all a matter of what people enjoy the most. Who's to say nerfing a few ubers won't provide a more enjoyable metagame? Sure, adding SD-less Garchomp alone would perhaps not diversify the metagame, but this is probably the most extreme example as there is something that it outclasses entirely. This isn't necessarily true for the others. For instance, keeping Mence but removing DD or Outrage would give Dragonite more reason to be used, while Mence would likely remain a viable pokémon. Taking away Latias' Draco Meteor would probably make its most viable set CM, and this adds something to the metagame that we simply don't have at the moment. There's nothing that is currently used that this set entirely outclasses, so it would likely diversify the metagame.
I can see this creating a more enjoyable metagame, and as far as I'm concerned, if we do it right, it can't possibly make it worse. The only issue is time, but since 5th gen will likely take quite some time to implement, we have quite a bit of that particular resource.
The "arbitrary" argument is completely irrelevant. Our entire tiering system is arbitrary. Who's to say OU shouldn't be what Ubers currently is? The answer to this is that we tend to like a bit more diversity than Ubers can provide, but either way, it's all a matter of what people enjoy the most. Who's to say nerfing a few ubers won't provide a more enjoyable metagame? Sure, adding SD-less Garchomp alone would perhaps not diversify the metagame, but this is probably the most extreme example as there is something that it outclasses entirely. This isn't necessarily true for the others. For instance, keeping Mence but removing DD or Outrage would give Dragonite more reason to be used, while Mence would likely remain a viable pokémon. Taking away Latias' Draco Meteor would probably make its most viable set CM, and this adds something to the metagame that we simply don't have at the moment. There's nothing that is currently used that this set entirely outclasses, so it would likely diversify the metagame.
I can see this creating a more enjoyable metagame, and as far as I'm concerned, if we do it right, it can't possibly make it worse. The only issue is time, but since 5th gen will likely take quite some time to implement, we have quite a bit of that particular resource.
Then people will start banning Stealth Rock on Aerodactyl, Extreme Speed on Lucario, and so on.
It's funny how Smogon keeps banning one Pokemon after another, and yet never had a metagame with ALL the "suspects" allowed to see how it goes. Lati@s where banned before people could even choose their character's name, for crying out loud.
When people stop being lazy and find ways to deal with "suspects" (not just choosing the six more used Pokémon with the six more used movesets and call that a team), then maybe we could play "Pokémon" as it was planned by the producers to be played. It's been three years already with this "ban, unban" shit, lol. When you finally fix a good team to start laddering, the main player from your team gets banned or it's main predator gets unbanned. Seriously, Smogon could use some of Sirlin's advice on competitive games.
It's funny how Smogon keeps banning one Pokemon after another, and yet never had a metagame with ALL the "suspects" allowed to see how it goes. Lati@s where banned before people could even choose their character's name, for crying out loud.
When people stop being lazy and find ways to deal with "suspects" (not just choosing the six more used Pokémon with the six more used movesets and call that a team), then maybe we could play "Pokémon" as it was planned by the producers to be played. It's been three years already with this "ban, unban" shit, lol. When you finally fix a good team to start laddering, the main player from your team gets banned or it's main predator gets unbanned. Seriously, Smogon could use some of Sirlin's advice on competitive games.
If this bothers you, play Ubers, or find/make a server with Battle Frontier rules.
Sirlin never tackled any game with 493 characters.
For a bit of fun, I'll try arguing for the losing side. A lot of the opinion voiced in this thread has gone against the idea.
Well, if we look at the first ever actual "Specific Ban," of Latias and Soul Dew, I think taking it as far as it did was unnecessary. Banning the use of Soul Dew altogether? Albeit, it was the only way to enforce not using Soul Dew on Latias, but it makes you think - When Latias was tested for OU, the fact that people immediately said "No Soul Dew" is interesting. Okay, I agree that having an auto boost to Special Defence and Special Attack equivalent to that of a Choice Item, while still being able to switch freely between attacks is unfair. But the fact is, if we are going to test Pokemon-specific move and item bans, the premier argument would be that it takes too long. Time does not equal efficiency. It will make the game more enjoyable.
The other question is: is it worth it? Is having a Salamence without Dragon Dance actually better than having Salamence at all? You will still have Draco Meteors being spammed everywhere, you will still have relatively powerful Outrages here and there. It will still exist, so people will still be prepared for it. But they won't prepare for it as much. It will be reduced to the same effectiveness as Dragonite, essentially, meaning that people now have more things at an equal level to look out for. Varies the metagame.
Garchomp is quite similar. It has a really good typing and relatively good bulk. It's not as good as Salamence when it comes to stallbreaking, but it is better when it comes to all-out destruction, hence why it was made Uber in the first place. Of course, the argument may be "Why use Garchomp without a Scarf or Swords Dance?" Simple. It can still do good damage to unprepared teams. And it's a neutered threat. Why would you be that prepared for something not as dangerous? A combination of STAB EQ and Outrage is good for whittling down the foe's team early game before cleaning up using something else. A lot of it revolves around how it's played.
Well, if we look at the first ever actual "Specific Ban," of Latias and Soul Dew, I think taking it as far as it did was unnecessary. Banning the use of Soul Dew altogether? Albeit, it was the only way to enforce not using Soul Dew on Latias, but it makes you think - When Latias was tested for OU, the fact that people immediately said "No Soul Dew" is interesting. Okay, I agree that having an auto boost to Special Defence and Special Attack equivalent to that of a Choice Item, while still being able to switch freely between attacks is unfair. But the fact is, if we are going to test Pokemon-specific move and item bans, the premier argument would be that it takes too long. Time does not equal efficiency. It will make the game more enjoyable.
The other question is: is it worth it? Is having a Salamence without Dragon Dance actually better than having Salamence at all? You will still have Draco Meteors being spammed everywhere, you will still have relatively powerful Outrages here and there. It will still exist, so people will still be prepared for it. But they won't prepare for it as much. It will be reduced to the same effectiveness as Dragonite, essentially, meaning that people now have more things at an equal level to look out for. Varies the metagame.
Garchomp is quite similar. It has a really good typing and relatively good bulk. It's not as good as Salamence when it comes to stallbreaking, but it is better when it comes to all-out destruction, hence why it was made Uber in the first place. Of course, the argument may be "Why use Garchomp without a Scarf or Swords Dance?" Simple. It can still do good damage to unprepared teams. And it's a neutered threat. Why would you be that prepared for something not as dangerous? A combination of STAB EQ and Outrage is good for whittling down the foe's team early game before cleaning up using something else. A lot of it revolves around how it's played.
The thing with Soul Dew is it's clearly a special case. The Latis have 600 BST and besides Soul Dew are not blatant Ubers. They're Pursuit-weak, and they're specially-based which isn't good thanks to Blissey. Latias' offenses aren't mega-high, and Latios' SpA is lower than Salamence and Dragonite's Atk.
In the event, testing proved that even Soul Dew-less they're still too powerful for standard, but Latias was definitely a close case.
The only thing that might be comparable is Darkrai and Dark Void. But even there, merely having a sleep move is nothing special, whereas an item that +1's two stats with no drawback IS in and of itself special no matter who it's on.
In the event, testing proved that even Soul Dew-less they're still too powerful for standard, but Latias was definitely a close case.
The only thing that might be comparable is Darkrai and Dark Void. But even there, merely having a sleep move is nothing special, whereas an item that +1's two stats with no drawback IS in and of itself special no matter who it's on.
Am I the only one crazy enough to suggest a Tier between Uber and OU? Some people want to bring these guys like Latias, Manaphy, Garchomp back to OU (personally I think it's because they can't come up with different strategies but that's just me) is what I'm hearing. You also have an equal amount of people that want to keep them Uber and ban Salamence for their own reasons. I'm with the opinion that if you start banning movesets people won't know where to stop and if you ban Sala then people are gonna be happy until they realize that something else hurts 95% of their teams. I think a tier between OU and Uber could be a solution. You kick out all the guys pissing everyone off in OU and the ones that (I assume, I don't play Ubers) don't perform well/outclassed in Ubers can have a playground. You wouldn't have to start banning movesets, people could in a way play OU with Chomp and Lat again if both parties agree to using the new tier, I think its a fair compromise.
Or we could just say leave things the way they are. Gen 5 is out in less than a year and all this will seem trivial when we start bitching about the new broken suspects Game Freak gives us. And hopefully they give us goddamn Flare Blitz or another good phys fire move on Flareon.
Or we could just say leave things the way they are. Gen 5 is out in less than a year and all this will seem trivial when we start bitching about the new broken suspects Game Freak gives us. And hopefully they give us goddamn Flare Blitz or another good phys fire move on Flareon.
This sort of thing has been done before, incidentally. In GSC play, the move combination Perish Song/Mean Look/Hypnosis is often banned on Misdreavus. (Also, I seem to remember being told about a tournament in Greece where Garchomp was allowed, but couldn't be used on the same team as Hippowdon or Tyranitar and wasn't allowed a hold item.) I'm not convinced that such bans are the way to go, though; imagine a "totally balanced" metagame where every Pokémon is restricted to the extent that it's a fair match against the likes of Caterpie or Luvdisc. Would many people play it or enjoy it? I imagine not.
It should be unnecessary. The idea is that standard is a well-balanced metagame with few bans. If you can make a well balanced metagame with the low Ubers, that should be standard. If low Ubers isn't well balanced, why play it at all when you can just play Ubers?
And Garchomp, Manaphy, the Latis, and even Salamence all see decent usage in Ubers. I think if you did the OU usage threshold on Ubers they'd all meet it.
Yes, that is true that it might perhaps create a more desirable metagame by banning sets in that manner, but how is such any better than banning things altogether? Both have the potential to create a more diverse meta-game.
Ultimately, I think that some threats need to be removed, because threats prevent people from being creative with their teams, threats restrict what you can run on your team. Surely, not all threats should be removed, but many of the threats that exist today somewhat restrict the viability of many teams.
Ideologically this is something that I would support. Practically, however, I don't think it would work. The suspect testing process already takes far too long. It will be fifth gen before we even complete testing at our current rate. Adding this would make testing take much longer.
Consider the garchomp decision, first we would have to have a vote about whether or not he needs to be nerfed, after that we would have to have a discussion on how to nerf him. Some people would want to restrict his level to 90 so they could use him in the same ways just with less power, others would think that he was only broken because of resistance berries and would want to ban his use of those, and still others would think that it was his use of swords dance that made him broken. Unless there was a strong majority for one position we would have to test all of these possibilities and then hold another vote on which one we liked best. And then, according to current testing procedure we would have to hold another vote to confirm the implementation of this restriction. I'm all for finding the best metagame, but not if it takes us 10 years.
Consider the garchomp decision, first we would have to have a vote about whether or not he needs to be nerfed, after that we would have to have a discussion on how to nerf him. Some people would want to restrict his level to 90 so they could use him in the same ways just with less power, others would think that he was only broken because of resistance berries and would want to ban his use of those, and still others would think that it was his use of swords dance that made him broken. Unless there was a strong majority for one position we would have to test all of these possibilities and then hold another vote on which one we liked best. And then, according to current testing procedure we would have to hold another vote to confirm the implementation of this restriction. I'm all for finding the best metagame, but not if it takes us 10 years.
My point exactly. I completely agree. By the time this shit gets sorted out it will be 5th Gen, maybe even 6th or 7th Gen.
Now that I think about it. It isn't a totally bad idea. The tough part is going tobe getting a majority opinion on each Pokemon, which I think is doubtful. And how are they gonna go about doing this anyhow??
Honestly, I don't see how it would make this would make metagame more diverse. Most people are just gonna run and snatch up Garchomp anyway.
I didn't know Sirlin played "Pokemon Fighters", the general idea of playing to win still applies but the difference between the two games is ridiculous to even bring it up in this argument. So, I suggest that you ppl stop already.
The only thing pokemon players should be taking from his articles are the ideals of playing to win.
To the moron above this post(if somebody post before me im talking to warrior prince), if you bothered to read the OP or kept up with Smogon, the suspect problem (time) has already been address infact with this new format it shouldn't take more than a 1month to make a decision on any issues.
The only thing pokemon players should be taking from his articles are the ideals of playing to win.
To the moron above this post(if somebody post before me im talking to warrior prince), if you bothered to read the OP or kept up with Smogon, the suspect problem (time) has already been address infact with this new format it shouldn't take more than a 1month to make a decision on any issues.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I find it funny that many are quoting Sirlin's "Play to win" and "use the OP things to your advantage" mentality when in the very same article he basically says, "Oh BTW guys, it's totally cool to arbitrarily ban things to balance out the game you play."
I am actually up for the specific bans. It has been done before during GSC era, and it hasn't gone through a vicious cycle of further restrictions, because the majority of the community wants to see as few restrictions as possible.
It may reduce viability of other monsters, but as long as a pokemon-specific move restriction would bump down a suspect from being defined as an uber then I see no reason to keep them out of the OU metagame. Additionally, this neutering of these suspects should minimize the overcentralization observed during their original presence in OU with their uninhibited capabilities.
It may reduce viability of other monsters, but as long as a pokemon-specific move restriction would bump down a suspect from being defined as an uber then I see no reason to keep them out of the OU metagame. Additionally, this neutering of these suspects should minimize the overcentralization observed during their original presence in OU with their uninhibited capabilities.
Banning soul dew is a terrible example because it's a unique item. Dragon dance and swords dance are not unique at all.
The point is, as others have said, that we're trying our best to exhaust the most out of the game mechanics as given. What you're trying to do is like if you're playing chess and then all of a sudden you make the rule that queens should be taken out and replaced by rooks, just because you think queens are imbalanced.
Or another example, say you take the sport of tennis. Well you think there should be more people coming to net, so you make a rule that you have to come to net within three turns. Sure it makes the game more interesting, but the point of most games is to work with what you're given with, and not to make the game what you want.
Gamefreak works hard to create a reasonably balanced game, I think, since they add increasing complexity to each generation (where they could spend less time to make rehashes with no new mechanics and still make tons of money). Honestly I think gamefreak does it pretty well since the only 600BST pokes without 4x weaknesses in OU are cresselia, jirachi, and metagross, only because cresselia's movepool is beyond terrible and jirachi/metagross have the worst offensive typing in the game, despite their stats. There will always be a top dog, or something that you will be more concerned with in team building than others, so unless that poke overcentralizes and ruins the game, then stick to what you were given, imo.
The point is, as others have said, that we're trying our best to exhaust the most out of the game mechanics as given. What you're trying to do is like if you're playing chess and then all of a sudden you make the rule that queens should be taken out and replaced by rooks, just because you think queens are imbalanced.
Or another example, say you take the sport of tennis. Well you think there should be more people coming to net, so you make a rule that you have to come to net within three turns. Sure it makes the game more interesting, but the point of most games is to work with what you're given with, and not to make the game what you want.
Gamefreak works hard to create a reasonably balanced game, I think, since they add increasing complexity to each generation (where they could spend less time to make rehashes with no new mechanics and still make tons of money). Honestly I think gamefreak does it pretty well since the only 600BST pokes without 4x weaknesses in OU are cresselia, jirachi, and metagross, only because cresselia's movepool is beyond terrible and jirachi/metagross have the worst offensive typing in the game, despite their stats. There will always be a top dog, or something that you will be more concerned with in team building than others, so unless that poke overcentralizes and ruins the game, then stick to what you were given, imo.
Well, here's the thing. Banning a Pokemon takes a long-ass time. Latias' time in the OU metagame took almost 1.5 years.kd24 said:
Banning a set/move/item would probably be a quicker process. It would be far easier to get those bans through. Thus, players would be far more reticent to show off their sets, since that would result in a potentially speedy ban than a very slow one.
Okay, the over exaggeration on my part was unnecessary, but I'm not a moron. I read the OP and I know about the new format. The council supposedly gets things done faster. It still think it will take longer than a month to thoroughly test these 5 suspects and see which items/ moves should be banned on them. Even though a re-vote/[whatever the proper term is] is not likely under the new format, it is still possible. No one ever imagined that the Latias vote would be taken to stage 3-5. Latias was OU for a year while the test was still going on. Is it not reasonable for me to assume that these tests may take longer than what you estimate? The Salamence test is going on now, and I'm assuming this will be taken care of once that is finished. That is already one month.
Maybe it will only take 1-2 months, but what if it takes 2 to 3 1/2?
Gen 5 is only 3 1/2 to 4 months away. Either way we are looking at around Late July-September before this is finished. That is ridiculously close to Gen 5. The metagame will be just beginning to re-settle, then everyone whips out a DSi and start Wifi battling. I mean, who used net battle once 4th Gen came out?
Let me put it like this: why do you think people don't ban certain moves on certain characters in fighting games? The moves are part of the fighter and essentially make the fighter what it is. As far as a competitive level is concerned, Pokemon are nothing more than stats and numbers on a screen. Altering those stats and numbers changes the Pokemon itself and that's completely outside of our jurisdiction. We're playing competitive Pokemon, not "Smogon's version of Pokemon".
For example, we have Phione, the completely watered down version of Manaphy that's not even viable in standard UU play. It's about exactly the same, minus the moves or stats that made Manaphy broken...oh wait, that's exactly what Manaphy is.
Some may say, "Well, we can just draw the line at moves, right?"
Nope. We already have a standard set for ourselves here at Smogon, which is to remain faithful to the game mechanics. This ensures that we're still playing competitive Pokemon rather than our own game, and sets a reasonable line for us not to cross in the policies we implement. This is the main threshold that shouldn't be crossed.
Basically, if we ban ANY aspect of a Pokemon inherent to the Pokemon itself, we are no longer playing competitive Pokemon, we're just changing the game. We should not be able to do that because it goes against the very essence of competitive Pokemon, which is the Pokemon themselves. I believe that crossing this threshold compromises the integrity of the game we play, and leads to an entirely different product, invalidating all the time and effort we've spent over the years to ensure that this would not happen.
Writing general rules that apply to all aspects of competitive play (like evasion clause, OHKO clause, banning certain Pokemon from standard) is quite alright as far as I'm concerned, but getting specific is crossing the line, and is more of an indicator that the Pokemon itself should be banned rather than the move.
For example, we have Phione, the completely watered down version of Manaphy that's not even viable in standard UU play. It's about exactly the same, minus the moves or stats that made Manaphy broken...oh wait, that's exactly what Manaphy is.
Some may say, "Well, we can just draw the line at moves, right?"
Nope. We already have a standard set for ourselves here at Smogon, which is to remain faithful to the game mechanics. This ensures that we're still playing competitive Pokemon rather than our own game, and sets a reasonable line for us not to cross in the policies we implement. This is the main threshold that shouldn't be crossed.
Basically, if we ban ANY aspect of a Pokemon inherent to the Pokemon itself, we are no longer playing competitive Pokemon, we're just changing the game. We should not be able to do that because it goes against the very essence of competitive Pokemon, which is the Pokemon themselves. I believe that crossing this threshold compromises the integrity of the game we play, and leads to an entirely different product, invalidating all the time and effort we've spent over the years to ensure that this would not happen.
Writing general rules that apply to all aspects of competitive play (like evasion clause, OHKO clause, banning certain Pokemon from standard) is quite alright as far as I'm concerned, but getting specific is crossing the line, and is more of an indicator that the Pokemon itself should be banned rather than the move.
Would you take issue with utilizing Pokemon specific bans alongside the suspect process for Generation Five?Lati0s said:
No. I hope no one is understanding this as a call to utterly balance the metagame. As far as I can interpret what Aldaron has suggested, Pokemon specific bans will only be used to balance Pokemon that we have moved from suspect to uber status. No one is going to ban Extremespeed on Lucario unless Lucario is first deemed uber. (I'm not going to touch the Stealth Rock example.) This is not a crusade to balance the top of OU. It is a suggestion that there are options other than the outright ban of a Pokemon.Glen ^^ said:
No game mechanics would be altered. We are simply banning things. That does not alter the game mechanics any more than our existing tier divisions. Do you consider the ban of Kyogre an alteration to the game mechanics?SJCrew said:
This analogy would only work if Pokemon players were forced to run the exact same teams. "Banning things" is ridiculous in Chess because diversity is not an issue. This is not the case for Pokemon.Akarias said:
This holds true for banning X Pokemon as well as X move. For example, banning Latias has let Infernape off his chain, doing bad things for stall. At the same time, Latias' removal means she's no longer there to hassle specially based offensive teams. Metagame changes as a result of bans have always been taken in stride. Your issue is not specific to the type of bans we are suggesting, it applies to any kind of ban with any kind of magnitude.Relictivity said:
If I have it right, you're saying the following: Because of large amount of time it takes to ban a Pokemon, the a person who exposes a new, broken set currently has lots of time to play with it, even after letting the community know. Because they know their tactics are safe to use for a reasonable amount of time, they don't mind helping the community by exposing the set. A new, faster way to balance things and make bans would ruin this. Am I correct to assume that this is your position?mtr said:
So, your problem with Pokemon specific bans is that... it's faster? You take issue with streamlining the process? Let me lay your concerns to rest: Pokemon specific bans will not streamline the process. What Aldaron has suggested in his second post in this thread leads me to believe that such bans will actually add a minor step to the current process. What is now: establish suspects, then determine if suspects are indeed uber; will become: establish suspects, determine if suspects are indeed uber, determine if/how we can keep these Pokemon in OU without their broken aspects. What makes you think that we would skip the first two steps? No one's suggesting that we immediately nerf Pokemon X. We're obviously going to have to test him, first.
If you disagree with a quick tiering process, Pokemon specific bans are the last things you should attack. The purpose of our Smogon Council is partially to streamline our bans. Do you have a similar issue with them?
I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of banning non-legendary Pokemon in the first place. With something like this idea in place, I'd expect almost every highly-effective Pokemon/move combination to be marked "suspect," making bans more common than they already are.
For all the talk about "playing Pokemon as it's presented to us" and "banning as few things as possible," I don't think the Smogon metagame lives up to either of those ideals as well as it could, and this would make it even worse.
For all the talk about "playing Pokemon as it's presented to us" and "banning as few things as possible," I don't think the Smogon metagame lives up to either of those ideals as well as it could, and this would make it even worse.
hello ignorant minnons, there's already a precedent of this on smogon already. we ban the usage of this combination of 3 moves together in gsc.
I'm saying that the tiering process examines and bans the Pokemon itself, not its capabilities, and for good reason. We can't decide that a Pokemon can't use certain moves that unbalance it from standard play because Manaphy without the ability to use Tail Glow is not Manaphy and it'd be quite a bitchslap to our current policy as it is.
Besides, handicapping Pokemon is a much more convoluted process that has no truly defined limit. Once you decide moves can be banned on a Pokemon, there's no reason to expect the other traits to remain untouched. There's neither need nor demand for a certain Pokemon to be allowed in Standard play, so we really don't need to go through the process of banning specific traits on specific Pokemon just to make them usable in a standard environment. Banning the Pokemon is more convenient, it makes more sense, and it doesn't change anything about the game as it is. Simply put, it's the most pragmatic option we have.