np: OU Suspect Testing Round 1 - ...wait, I'm not Jumpman16!

Status
Not open for further replies.
O_o I already said this but...

If Light Ball, a better item than Soul Dew is obviously not broken, then why would Soul Dew be broken?
Light Ball is NOT a better item then Soul Dew. Doubling Pikachu's incredibly low stats does not make it broken or even a good Pokemon. Soul Dew gives Latios a free CM just by existing, which means they're basically holding Specs with the ability to switch moves and won't die to a Special Attack that isn't named Draco Meteor (sometimes not even that).
 
@XienZo Yes.
@CosmicExplorer: How does Breloom being a powerful attacker while Pikachu is mediocre affect anything?

EDIT:
Light Ball is NOT a better item then Soul Dew.
If Light Ball's boosts could be applied to Latios, then would you use Light Ball or Soul Dew?
 
Again, spore can be negated by Herbivore and Dark Void doesn't have immunes. Therefore you can't say it is strictly better if we can't argue the same for light ball because it simply isn't the case. Sure the 20% accuracy is far better and less situational, but what Latios would want +1 spa/sdef when he could have +2 spa/att? If Pikachu can go physical with 55 attack Latios can do it with 90, on top of an automatic Nasty Plot from base 130 SpA. The difference is in the users, like Dark Void vs Spore.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Due to the different users given benefits from the item, Light Ball was not broken, while Soul Dew was in Gen 4. The user of Light Ball is absolutely mediocre, which is the only reason it wasn't broken with it. Breloom is not; it's a powerful pokemon, even without Spore. And Herbivore isn't a valid argument; no one ever uses it, outside of the scarcely-used AFROBULL, while the 20 acc increase is quite major.
 
Light Ball is NOT a better item then Soul Dew. Doubling Pikachu's incredibly low stats does not make it broken or even a good Pokemon. Soul Dew gives Latios a free CM just by existing, which means they're basically holding Specs with the ability to switch moves and won't die to a Special Attack that isn't named Draco Meteor (sometimes not even that).

But what if we're comparing Pikachu in NU (well, I don't believe they have a banlist persay, but just referring to the term "broken") versus Latios in OU? We should have the same general policies for bans regardless of which tier, right?
 
Does Wide Guard work in singles? Not that anyone would use it because it would be a one turn fix and incredibly stupid to use. You can go after my wording too, but I'll make it clearer. Dark Void has no type immunities. Aside, the three things you mentioned (Though Magic Guard won't block sleep, Magic Mirror will) block both as you yourself said, I don't see the point in bringing it up.

I want to see someone use wide guard competitively in singles though, the idea baffles me

Edit: It wouldn't matter if Breloom is miles better than Pikachu or not, as long as he isn't Uber strong with spore it wouldn't be an issue. I'm missing how it's okay for Soul Dew to be broken and banned because of who gets it but not Dark Void
 
What Domeface wants is a blanket ban on Dark Void. Your Level Clause suggestion would work if you want ALL Pokemon to be Level 90, or 80, or whatever.
let me explain it again...domefaces suggests that if any move makes all of it's users broken(those that actually use it)then that move should be banned..and i am telling to him that with the same logic we could instead of removing the move lower the level to make them less broken with the move...i am not supporting this i just use it as an argument to show him that his logic is incorrect...and i am not talking about lowering every pokemon's level,just those whose combination of a move and all users of it are broken instead of removing the move that makes them broken...so it's the same case..so what i am telling is that by the same logic that domeface wants to ban dv i could propose to make darkrai and all users of dv only available at max lvl.90 or something so they're not broken with dark void...and this doesn't sounds healthy to me...
 
Does Wide Guard work in singles? Not that anyone would use it because it would be a one turn fix and incredibly stupid to use. You can go after my wording too, but I'll make it clearer. Dark Void has no type immunities. Aside, the three things you mentioned (Though Magic Guard won't block sleep, Magic Mirror will) block both as you yourself said, I don't see the point in bringing it up.

I want to see someone use wide guard competitively in singles though, the idea baffles me

I want to see a competitive player switch a Herbivore user into Breloom. >_>
 
I'd be quoting but it makes my broswer crash...

Herbivore has Afrobull and being an ability won't use up a moveslot. Wide Guard is entirely useless when Protect exists and take a turn to use (in it's very situational moments it can be used) so not only can a wide guard user not switch in on Darkrai but they've wasted a moveslot on wide guard.
 
I'd be quoting but it makes my broswer crash...

Herbivore has Afrobull and being an ability won't use up a moveslot. Wide Guard is entirely useless when Protect exists and take a turn to use (in it's very situational moments it can be used) so not only can a wide guard user not switch in on Darkrai but they've wasted a moveslot on wide guard.

Yes, so you're claiming that, in a competitive environment, Herbivore will absorb Spore significantly more often than Wide Guard blocks Dark Void, right?

Edit: Also, them both having the same 3 counters DOES make a difference, in that if one has an additional counter, than it only has 4/3rd as many as the other one does.
 
If Light Ball's boosts could be applied to Latios, then would you use Light Ball or Soul Dew?

THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Light Ball's boosts can ONLY be applied to Pikachu, which does not make it overpowered. Soul Dew easily makes the Lati twins overpowered. To argue for the banning of a particular move would be to argue that the move itself is overpowered. The move itself is obviously not overpowered; to be overpowered in itself is to make every pokemon besides mediocre pokemon broken with the move. That's obviously not true, what with Breloom not being overpowered with Spore, an obviously superior move. To argue that an item is overpowered is to argue that the item makes every pokemon with it besides obviously mediocre pokemon overpowered. Light Ball is not overpowered in itself because it doesn't make the pokemon with it overpowered, because that pokemon is completely mediocre. Soul Dew is overpowered, because it makes all the pokemon that get it completely overpowered. Dark Void and its better equivalent, Spore, do not make every non-mediocre pokemon with it overpowered. Darkrai is overpowered with it, but Breloom isn't. Breloom is not a mediocre pokemon. Therefore, any argument that argues that Dark Void is overpowered by itself and not Spore is invalid.

@chomper: A single only slightly useful pokemon has Herbivore, and that pokemon is easily wrecked by Breloom's Mach Punch. Herbivore is not a valid argument.
 
Again, spore can be negated by Herbivore and Dark Void doesn't have immunes. Therefore you can't say it is strictly better if we can't argue the same for light ball because it simply isn't the case. Sure the 20% accuracy is far better and less situational, but what Latios would want +1 spa/sdef when he could have +2 spa/att? If Pikachu can go physical with 55 attack Latios can do it with 90, on top of an automatic Nasty Plot from base 130 SpA. The difference is in the users, like Dark Void vs Spore.

If drizzle is banned we should put Kyogre in OU just because we can... XD

Except for the fact you simply couldn't do that unless we allow no ability Pokemon which is another issue. Things like Drizzle/Sandstream etc can be discussed being banned because they're powerful but that the Pokemon have alternative abilities which while not nearly as great make it so they aren't autobanned by default. I don't know if Kyogre without Drizzle would be OU or not (it potentially might be, but then looking at it's still disgusting stats all round and really good surviveability it seems unlikely even if Kyogre could somehow exist without Drizzle) but it wouldn't matter.

Soul Dew is the broken item because of it's users which was a free +1/+1 with NO downsides that are FAR better than the other item users. I mean, things like Clampearl, Marowak, Pikachu, etc wouldn't be seen because they (except Pikachu who is unfortunately outsped by a lot of things in OU who murder him) are SLOW and have crappy defenses (at least on some side), no recovery, etc. Unlike Latias/Latios, they'd need additional things to even remotely be viable while Latis are viable with or without. With, they have uber stats and Recover. Without, they still have impressive stats and speed. 110 is insanely fast for most things and they have decent enough physical defenses and special defenses that make them going down in one hit very hard since you'll have to outspeed them or survive (and taking Latios's Draco Meteors as everyone knows hit like a truck on nearly everything). Latios (at least) seems broken without Soul Dew. Latias maybe not so much but it definitely overcentralizes.

Darkrai is probably too powerful with or without Dark Void (like Latios without Soul Dew although Darkrai could only wish his stab moves were as strong). And he's faster and carries Nasty Plot which is instant +2. Admittedly without Dark Void, it will force Darkrai to carry something to further extend it's coverage which could potentially make counters worse like carrying Psychic to destroy fighters, Substitute for protection, Taunt to stop things from trying to mess with it, some sort of other coverage move (Icebeam/Spacial Rend/Thunderbolt), Trick to screw people over with a Choice item it doesn't need anymore, etc. It could run a Specs set as has been suggested which will hurt extremely hard as well. It could also potentially run a mixed set (90 Atk isn't bad and it has Swords Dance and Stabbed SUCKER PUNCH). Darkrai would be slightly harder to set up and there is no longer the fear of your Darkrai counter potentially being Dark Voided and essentially Death Sentenced so there is no longer the almost need to let it get free boosts, but it could still be extremely damaging and for OU, it has quite respectable defenses (after all, it is only 2 hit koed by Scizor Punches and the only Mach Punches that ko are Breloom, Hitmontop, and maybe Guts boosted Roopushin although if it carries Chople it would live all of those easy). Darkrai has enough power to still potentially be broken even without Dark Void.

And if one is implying Dark Void is broken, it also logically follows Darkrai is broken (let's be honest, he's the only one who uses the move). Because he is the only user, if Dark Void is broken but not Spore, it has to be because Darkrai is broken, not Dark Void because Parasect/Breloom/others aren't broken with Spore. Spore is the better move obviously yet Dark Void is the one complained about...running off of Darkrai's 125 speed stat.
 
THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Light Ball's boosts can ONLY be applied to Pikachu, which does not make it overpowered.

But it COULD make it overpowered in a lower tier. However, we still treated Pikachu and Light Orb Pikachu as one entity regarding tiering among ANY tier, whereas the Latis were treated as separate entities with and without the Soul Dew in the appropriate tier boundary, OU/Uber.


This leads me to conclude that ultimately, the Soul Dew clause is, in retrospect, as ridiculous of a ban as banning Dark Void is. Of course, we didn't realize it back then because nothing else was applicable under the same logic. But now, with Dark Void Darkrai, it seems that the Soul Dew clause is just as faulty. (well, of course, right now, Soul Dew isn't released yet, but that's a separate matter.)
 
@XienZo: That's the point I wanted to make, so we don't end up with a mess like Soul Dew clause again this gen. I don't actually think we should ban Dark Void, but I'm trying to understand why one of those bans is okay and the other one is a horrible idea. In the end we're only changing one or two pokemon but it's okay as a 'blanket ban' because it only effects them anyway.
 
But it COULD make it overpowered in a lower tier. However, we still treated Pikachu and Light Orb Pikachu as one entity regarding tiering among ANY tier, whereas the Latis were treated as separate entities with and without the Soul Dew in the appropriate tier boundary, OU/Uber.


This leads me to conclude that ultimately, the Soul Dew clause is, in retrospect, as ridiculous of a ban as banning Dark Void is. Of course, we didn't realize it back then because nothing else was applicable under the same logic. But now, with Dark Void Darkrai, it seems that the Soul Dew clause is just as faulty. (well, of course, right now, Soul Dew isn't released yet, but that's a separate matter.)

Pikachu both with and without Light Ball was NU last gen. They weren't tiered differently, it's just that neither was overpowered, therefore no clause or ban needed to be made, unlike Soul Dew, where a pokemon with Soul Dew was obviously overpowered with it, but not yet decided to be overpowered without Soul Dew. Light Ball would have been subject to the same sort of ban as Soul Dew, if Pikachu had been proven to be overpowered in any tier last gen. The Soul Dew clause does make sense, even with Light Ball unbanned, because Light Ball did not make Pikachu overpowered.
 
Pikachu both with and without Light Ball was NU last gen. They weren't tiered differently, it's just that neither was overpowered, therefore no clause or ban needed to be made, unlike Soul Dew, where a pokemon with Soul Dew was obviously overpowered with it, but not yet decided to be overpowered without Soul Dew. Light Ball would have been subject to the same sort of ban as Soul Dew, if Pikachu had been proven to be overpowered in any tier last gen. The Soul Dew clause does make sense, even with Light Ball unbanned, because Light Ball did not make Pikachu overpowered.

Yes, but no attempt was made to analyze and treat Pikachu as a different entity at all.

Before we knew what tier the Latis would be in, we tested each separately, and THEN tiered them. However, for Pika and all the other species item users, we never treated the item-user and item-less versions separately before they were tiered.
 
I'm afraid I don't see the point of your post (this is not meant to be offensive). Both of the itemless and item-user versions of Pikachu were nowhere near overpowered in any tier; there was no reason to treat them differently.
 
I'm afraid I don't see the point of your post (this is not meant to be offensive). Both of the itemless and item-user versions of Pikachu were nowhere near overpowered in any tier; there was no reason to treat them differently.

Basically, for Pika, we simply informally eyed how each version would do, and then tiered them.

For Latias, we actually treated them as separate pokemon during testing before they were tiered.
 
@ CosmicExplorer: If Breloom is worse than Darkrai, then why couldn't we call Breloom "mediocre?" I still fail to see how the difference in power level between Breloom and Pikachu matters in this discussion; the main importance is that both Breloom and Pikachu are weaker than Darkrai and Lati@s, respectively.

@FluffyOtters: That topic is currently being discussed.

EDIT: O_o Ninja'ed horribly

This leads me to conclude that ultimately, the Soul Dew clause is, in retrospect, as ridiculous of a ban as banning Dark Void is. Of course, we didn't realize it back then because nothing else was applicable under the same logic. But now, with Dark Void Darkrai, it seems that the Soul Dew clause is just as faulty. (well, of course, right now, Soul Dew isn't released yet, but that's a separate matter.)
Which is what I think domeface (and I, partially) was trying to say.
 
But the difference between Soul Dew and Light Ball is that one was overpowered and that one was not. The reason that Latias was treated differently was because it was completely overpowered with Soul Dew, while Pikachu was not. I don't see how I can phrase it any more simply. Latias was overpowered. Pikachu was not. If you're arguing that the Latis should have been tested with Soul Dew before creating the metagame, they were banned initially under the same reasoning that Arceus was initially banned in this generation. If Pikachu was overpowered in any tier, then there'd be a reason to make a Light Ball clause. But it simply wasn't necessary. I don't see what's wrong with that.
 
I think most of the reason that Soul Dew Clause can't be used to apply the same logic to Darkrai is the fact that moves are way different than items. It's different to restrict a Pokemon from using a move it learns than to keep players from choosing a certain item; one is a complete and direct nerf while the other was never an innate aspect of the Pokemon to begin with.

Also, Soul Dew had a direct and tangible effect on Latios and Latias by making them broken to a numerically measurable degree. Dark Void is learned by an extremely effective sweeper who abuses its capabilities to make it seem as though it's broken, when it's really Darkrai pulling all the muscle.

If Beautifly had Dark Void, no one would give a shit. It's really the fact that you have to deal with both sleep AND the monstrously strong sweeper with blazing speed and amazing coverage. It's really too much to expect the metagame to handle. Instead of trying to take him down to OU's level, we should send him back to the tier in which he belonged to begin with.
 
ssbbm, besides the fact that the quote you display completely contradicts what you've been saying this whole thread, the "main importance" you say doesn't matter. You have to argue that Dark Void is broken in itself to argue for its banning. First of all, it's not, unless you argue that sleep itself is broken. Second, if Dark Void was broken, a move statistically better than it would be broken too. For a move to be broken, it has to make all of the non-mediocre pokemon with it broken. Breloom is not mediocre; it is in fact quite useful. But it having Spore does not make it broken. The difference between this situation and Soul Dew + Light Ball is that Light Ball does not make all of its users broken, because its only user is absolutely terrible, while Soul Dew makes every user of it overpowered. Dark Void does not make all of its non-mediocre users broken, therefore the move is not broken, therefore only Darkrai is broken with it, therefore only Darkrai should be banned. You're utilizing circular logic and your arguments make absolutely no sense.
 
But the difference between Soul Dew and Light Ball is that one was overpowered and that one was not.

But what I'm saying is that we treated them differently BEFORE we knew how we were tiered. You can't justify our differing treatment of them BEFORE we knew how they were fared in the metagame BASED on how they were in the metagame, namely because we didn't KNOW if either was overpowered or not when we made the decision to split Latias and not split Pikachu.

That is, before we knew what tier Latias would be in, we split them into Soul Dew and non Soul Dew versions, and then figured out that they were (both) overpowered.

Before we knew what tier Pikachu would be in, we didn't split it into Light Orb and non Light Orb version, and then figured out that they were (both) NU.

Edit:
I think most of the reason that Soul Dew Clause can't be used to apply the same logic to Darkrai is the fact that moves are way different than items. It's different to restrict a Pokemon from using a move it learns than to keep players from choosing a certain item; one is a complete and direct nerf while the other was never an innate aspect of the Pokemon to begin with.

It doesn't matter what was intended to begin with; in the present, both improve that pokemon and only that pokemon, and that pokemon can potentially be played without the item or move.

Also, we're applying Darkrai logic to Soul Dew Clause, not the other way around.


Also, Soul Dew had a direct and tangible effect on Latios and Latias by making them broken to a numerically measurable degree. Dark Void is learned by an extremely effective sweeper who abuses its capabilities to make it seem as though it's broken, when it's really Darkrai pulling all the muscle.

If Beautifly had Dark Void, no one would give a shit. It's really the fact that you have to deal with both sleep AND the monstrously strong sweeper with blazing speed and amazing coverage. It's really too much to expect the metagame to handle. Instead of trying to take him down to OU's level, we should send him back to the tier in which he belonged to begin with.

Yeah, but who's going to care if Soul Dew affects Beautifly either?

We know that it's silly to ban Dark Void, but for the exact same reason, it's just as silly to keep the Soul Dew Clause for the exact same arguments.

Edit2:

The quote shows that what I'm saying can only be shown to be complete BS if we accept the SD Clause as complete BS, as the SD Clause is basically a fall-back for my WHOLE argument.

Which, looking at it now, it totally is.
 
The quote shows that what I'm saying can only be shown to be complete BS if we accept the SD Clause as complete BS, as the SD Clause is basically a fall-back for my WHOLE argument.

but onto the argument:
Also, Soul Dew had a direct and tangible effect on Latios and Latias by making them broken to a numerically measurable degree. Dark Void is learned by an extremely effective sweeper who abuses its capabilities to make it seem as though it's broken, when it's really Darkrai pulling all the muscle.

If Beautifly had Dark Void, no one would give a shit. It's really the fact that you have to deal with both sleep AND the monstrously strong sweeper with blazing speed and amazing coverage. It's really too much to expect the metagame to handle. Instead of trying to take him down to OU's level, we should send him back to the tier in which he belonged to begin with.
You could say the same thing about what would happen if Beautifly had an item with +1/+1. It's the fact that you have to deal with the Lati@s twins with an auto CM that makes it broken.
 
When one bans a pokemon, one should be banning it under its best set. Essentially, if a pokemon CAN be broken, it should be banned.

With Darkrai for example, its best set is DV/NP/DP/FB. If this set is broken, it should be banned, even if it has the ability to run weaker sets.

Looking at the banning of Garchomp in the 4th gen, one of its sets was found to be broken, therefore Garchomp its self was broken and it was banned.

Looking at a more obvious uber, Dialga, it would not be broken if all it could run was DragonBreath, however, it can run much better sets that are broken, therefore it is banned.

Essentially what I am saying is that if a pokemon is broken under ideal circumstances, it should be banned regardless of if those circumstances could be weakened. And by ideal circumstances I don't mean in battle circumstances like getting off multiple shell breaks and getting to +6 +6 +6.
 
It doesn't matter what was intended to begin with; in the present, both improve that pokemon and only that pokemon, and that pokemon can potentially be played without the item or move.
Actually, I do think it matters; learnset and item choices are two different things. As far as simulators are concerned, both are simple mouse clicks, but taking away a move on a single Pokemon is more akin to a direct nerf than an item is. In other words, moves have a far more direct impact on the battle than items do. This game is all about getting the HP down to 0 and nothing has a more direct impact on this than attacks moves do.

When we ban moves, items, or abilities, we have to make sure they have a strong enough influence to be regarded as a separate entity in the stead of the Pokemon utilizing them. Banning Dark Void means Dark Void was the culprit.

When we want a certain move or ability to be banned on a specific Pokemon, it's almost never the abilitiy's fault; if Spore is a problem on Breloom and not Parasect, then right then and there it becomes clear that Breloom needs to be looked at. The only problem is when we have a whole host of Pokemon abusing Spore the same way Breloom is. That's when we get to blame the move.

Either way, before we start handing out tests and bans, we need to make sure we understand what the real problem is. Most of us agree that Darkrai is pulling his weight here. Even the guy proposing this idea agrees to some extent. So long as that's the case, I don't see what more really needs to be discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top