np: OU Suspect Testing Round 2 - Who am I to break tradition?

[capefeather]

Ultimately, a needlessly complicated ruleset is very unsightly no matter how you slice it. It exaggerates the emphasis on knowledge of the ruleset, which is a universal turn-off. Hell, I've seen people claim that Smash's rulesets are too complicated.

Game mechanics are honestly dumb counterexamples to use. We follow game mechanics so that we are playing on accurate simulators and our musings are relevant to people playing on the actual cartridges. We're not playing Pokémon Online; we're playing Pokémon, which has been reproduced in Pokémon Online. Sleep Clause is kind of a weird example because it's kind of hard to express in a satisfactory way without altering game mechanics.

Let's face it. Do we really NEED to have Rain Dance Swift Swimmers and Drizzle [everything else] in the same game?

 

[ensoriki]

Why would there be any need to do that? Just banning Drizzle is the easiest way of dealing with Drizzle, not this "Oh you can use Drizzle, but not with any of the actual abusers" bullshit

There are abilities and pokemon that use rain that don't have swift swim.
Or are you forgetting about those pokemon?
The clause restricts swift swimmers to only working with Rain dance or if the opposing team brings rain, while allowing other types of rain strategies.
Banning drizzle just allows RD + SS as a strategy if anything.
Unless pokemon are still "broken" in drizzle without SS, it's more efficient then banning Drizzle.

The easy way does not necessarily mean the right way.

 

[Demoness]

Lets be honest here; would you run Rain if you couldn't use any of the Swift Swim sweepers? I don't see why we need to keep Drizzle considering that your idea would pretty much ruin the whole ppint of using it. I really don't see why not just banning Drizzle outright wouldn't be the best option.

 

[Arc Tech]

Well this gen we've already struck entirely new ground by banning abilities. We already have done item bans - Soul Dew, and created clauses preventing Sleep and Freeze being inflicted upon more than one pokemon, which are so complex that it required coding into simulators as it did not exist in the past games. Besides, the only reason against it is that it is overtly complicated, but is remembering that Kingdra cannot be used with Swift Swim really too hard? Abilities have been restricted by DW release already, so it has been done before. The issue may be that in future similar bans would be logical, and then everything would get too complex.

In terms of the logic of banning a pokemon with ability rather than anything else, I suppose the problem is that we have never banned a move on a pokemon that proved broken. However an ability is a very defining aspect of a pokemon. Often it is the ability that gives a mon its role, and hence perhaps it's broken aspects, and since a different ability (now possible for almost every mon due to DW) can remove that broken aspect easily and be tested - without having to debate if it is broken when not being able to use its best move for example. I think that since abilities are clearly defined and have such an impact on the role of many pokemon, I think this could at least be tested.

Ultimately, a needlessly complicated ruleset is very unsightly no matter how you slice it. It exaggerates the emphasis on knowledge of the ruleset, which is a universal turn-off. Hell, I've seen people claim that Smash's rulesets are too complicated.

Game mechanics are honestly dumb counterexamples to use. We follow game mechanics so that we are playing on accurate simulators and our musings are relevant to people playing on the actual cartridges. We're not playing Pokémon Online; we're playing Pokémon, which has been reproduced in Pokémon Online. Sleep Clause is kind of a weird example because it's kind of hard to express in a satisfactory way without altering game mechanics.

The problem is, imo, not that they are complicated. It is that they are entirely arbitrary.

Let me use wobbuffet as an example (you guys can tell he's my fave example, can't you?), assuming we vote and find him broken. It is the combination of shadow tag, encore, and countercoat that make him broken. By making a nonsimple ban, we can make him not broken. But what do we ban? If we banned any one of them, he would be easily foiled and not broken. And thus comes an arbitrary choice.

 

[Demoness]

Edit: @ Berserker Lord: The point of these suggestions is not to make an easier solution, but one making for a better more diverse metagame, where Rain is not eliminated as a playstyle. See Capefeather's post for why it would nto be very viable without Drizzle.

The only reason pretty much anyone uses Rain is because of the redcilous power that it brings to the table with the Swift Swimmers. (Okay, Manaphy is annoying too, but i'm not getting into that) Get rid of the thing that people are using it for and people will stop using it. Once again; do you honestly think that people would use Rain teams if they couldn't abuse the large amount of Swift Swimmers? I'm quite sure that Manaphy and other things (don't remember them right now) aren't going to sway people into using Rain.

 

[Ming-Ming]

I still find the better plan of action is just plain banning Drizzle and get things over with. If it's really Swift Swimmers and the effects of Rain that're really giving the metagame a run for its money in terms of balance, then... Why not get rid of the item that causes most of the flak?

Losing Drizzle doesn't lose Rain, it just removes the easy "oh now the field is set up with 1.5x strength Water moves, and Swift Swim kicked up" by needing to set it up. What I don't understand is... How is this thread still cluttered with arguments against banning Drizzle, and trying to get rid of Swift Swim and other mon, as well as on top of that, a completely cumbersome clause on trying to have both Drizzle and Swift Swim on the same field.

All I'm saying is... What is the need for NOT banning Drizzle in the first place?

 

[Arc Tech]

The only reason pretty much anyone uses Rain is because of the redcilous power that it brings to the table with the Swift Swimmers. (Okay, Manaphy is annoying too, but i'm not getting into that) Get rid of the thing that people are using it for and people will stop using it.

Indeed. Rain stallers are not better much better than ordinary stallers, if at all, so there is not much to justify using a teamslot on a subpar pokemon such as Politoed. Not to mention while HO teams appreciate having just 1 type to fucs on as their main offense, stall teams are better with a variety of types for resistances, as opposed to one main type sharing its weaknesses with most or all members. Sandstall teams last gen are different quite simply because hippowdon and tyranitar are not subpar pokemon.

I suppose there might be some remnants of rain offense attempting to work, with politoed/kingdra/rotom-w/shell smasher/kerudio (once its released)/ and natty/toxicroak.

 

[ensoriki]

You are not banning any pokemon with the clause, your not banning any moves, no abilities, no items.

If you ban Drizzle Swift swimmers will have to use RD regardless, if you put in the clause they still...have to use RD regardless.
Your not taking anything away from them by implementing the clause that you would by banning the ability.
Stuff like limiting the actual combinations the pokemon can do with itself, such as it's ability and moveset are essentially sandbagging it.

Lets be honest here; would you run Rain if you couldn't use any of the Swift Swim sweepers? I don't see why we need to keep Drizzle considering that your idea would pretty much ruin the whole ppint of using it. I really don't see why not just banning Drizzle outright wouldn't be the best option.

Yes. We've used Hail without any speed boost, Sandstorm before any speed boost.
Yes, yes it would be used.
Rain without swift swim isn't weak, it's slower.
Rain stall is still a viable strategy.
Teams utilizing rain but not stalling are also a viable strategy. Going back to gen 3 and 4 and Tyrannitars usage.
Tyrannitar may have a better stat pool than Politoed, but it doesn't get double stab crunch or stone edge, now does it?
Kingdra is also STILL good without swift swim the DD sets for instance make up very well for the initial lack of speed.
The issue is not "would rain be used" that's just being silly, making this a popularity contest "well nobody likes rain without Swift Swim so whatever" instead of "Well rain would still be broken without swift swim" which is what's important.
If rain is still broken without Swift swim, then theres an issue, otherwise it's just whining about "precedents".

All I'm saying is... What is the need for NOT banning Drizzle in the first place?

The playstyles that involve rain but do not need swift swim.
People here do not realize them because they are a minority in comparison to Offensive rain.

 

[capefeather]

The problem is, imo, not that they are complicated. It is that they are entirely arbitrary.

I think that it's both. Even if they somehow weren't arbitrary, it sure as hell would look that way at a casual glance.

 

[Ming-Ming]

The playstyles that involve rain but do not need swift swim.
People here do not realize them because they are a minority in comparison to Offensive rain.

Soo... To preserve some niche playstyles, you want to keep an ability that seems to be arguably broken? That really sounds a bit off to me, akin to trying to put Ho-Oh into Standard by removing its Sacred Fire, Recover, and Roost. I.E. nigh-on pointless and pretty much going to lead yourself into asking "Why bother with the trouble?"

 

[ensoriki]

A "Casual" glance is "Your team has legendaries, I'm not fighting that!"
Casual players already put their own clauses on what they'll fight, and even when not talking about casual players explicitly, the idea is simply that people rejecting certain teams is not new.

Soo... To preserve some niche playstyles, you want to keep an ability that seems to be arguably broken? That really sounds a bit off to me, akin to trying to put Ho-Oh into Standard by removing its Sacred Fire, Recover, and Roost. I.E. nigh-on pointless and pretty much going to lead yourself into asking "Why bother with the trouble?"

Is Trick room not Niche?
Is Gravity not Niche?

If you ban drizzle, you force Swift swimmers not to have infinite rain.
If you implement the clause you still force swift swimmers not to have infinite rain.
It's almost the exact same affect, only it accounts for other playstyles.
The only issue is if those other playstyles would be "broken".
Plain and simple.
If those playstyles are not banned than the effect in terms of removing a broken playstyle is the exact same.

 

[Demoness]

The playstyles that involve rain but do not need swift swim.
People here do not realize them because they are a minority in comparison to Offensive rain.

So we should cater to people who are purposely making their team weaker just because they don't want to use the best of that team style? Thats absolute bullshit. If something broken, we ban it completely.

 

[Arc Tech]

You are not banning any pokemon with the clause, your not banning any moves, no abilities, no items.

If you ban Drizzle Swift swimmers will have to use RD regardless, if you put in the clause they still...have to use RD regardless.
Your not taking anything away from them by implementing the clause that you would by banning the ability.
Stuff like limiting the actual combinations the pokemon can do with itself, such as it's ability and moveset are essentially sandbagging it.

Yes. We've used Hail without any speed boost, Sandstorm before any speed boost.
Yes, yes it would be used.
Rain without swift swim isn't weak, it's slower.
Rain stall is still a viable strategy.
Teams utilizing rain but not stalling are also a viable strategy. Going back to gen 3 and 4 and Tyrannitars usage.
Tyrannitar may have a better stat pool than Politoed, but it doesn't get double stab crunch or stone edge, now does it?
Kingdra is also STILL good without swift swim the DD sets for instance make up very well for the initial lack of speed.
The issue is not "would rain be used" that's just being silly, making this a popularity contest "well nobody likes rain without Swift Swim so whatever" instead of "Well rain would still be broken without swift swim" which is what's important.
If rain is still broken without Swift swim, then theres an issue, otherwise it's just whining about "precedents".


The playstyles that involve rain but do not need swift swim.
People here do not realize them because they are a minority in comparison to Offensive rain.

The one thing is that damp rock offensive swift swim rain is more viable than any perma-rain stalling. Sandstall is different becuase ttar and hippo are good pokes, and defensively as well at that. Double-stab attacks are more useful offensively than defensively. If toed was a semi-decent defender already, then maybe, but without a reliable recovery move it is just not good enough.

 

[capefeather]

By that, I mean a casual glance at the ruleset. That's an entirely different meaning.

Again, do we really NEED to have Rain Dance Swift Swimmers and Drizzle [everything else] in the same game?

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Lets be honest here; would you run Rain if you couldn't use any of the Swift Swim sweepers? I don't see why we need to keep Drizzle considering that your idea would pretty much ruin the whole ppint of using it. I really don't see why not just banning Drizzle outright wouldn't be the best option.

Well, I know someone on the top of the ladder who is using Kingdra as his only Swift Swimmer, and it's more a revenge killer than anything...

I still find the better plan of action is just plain banning Drizzle and get things over with. If it's really Swift Swimmers and the effects of Rain that're really giving the metagame a run for its money in terms of balance, then... Why not get rid of the item that causes most of the flak?

Losing Drizzle doesn't lose Rain, it just removes the easy "oh now the field is set up with 1.5x strength Water moves, and Swift Swim kicked up" by needing to set it up. What I don't understand is... How is this thread still cluttered with arguments against banning Drizzle, and trying to get rid of Swift Swim and other mon, as well as on top of that, a completely cumbersome clause on trying to have both Drizzle and Swift Swim on the same field.

All I'm saying is... What is the need for NOT banning Drizzle in the first place?

Would a metagame without Kingdra+Ludicolo+Kabutops be broken? Would Gorebyss really be that powerful? Are Specs Hydro Pump under rain from [anything] really that unstoppable? Would Drizzle be balanced and a valid playstyle with such bans?


That's why we're having this discussion. Nothing is "obviously" broken (at least not in this round!).

 

[alexwolf]

The only reason pretty much anyone uses Rain is because of the redcilous power that it brings to the table with the Swift Swimmers. (Okay, Manaphy is annoying too, but i'm not getting into that) Get rid of the thing that people are using it for and people will stop using it. Once again; do you honestly think that people would use Rain teams if they couldn't abuse the large amount of Swift Swimmers? I'm quite sure that Manaphy and other things (don't remember them right now) aren't going to sway people into using Rain.

i think that manaphy alone is a good enough reason to use perma-rain even without swift swimmers...and after this we have toxicroak,rain dish ludicolo,hydration vaporeon,hydration dd whishcash,dry skin parasect and a lot other pokes that still benefit greatly from rain like thunder abusers,kingdra(even without swift swim) and pokemons that have their fire weakness covered by rain like nattorei...

 

[ensoriki]

By that, I mean a casual glance at the ruleset. That's an entirely different meaning.

Again, do we really NEED to have Rain Dance Swift Swimmers and Drizzle [everything else] in the same game?

We don't NEED to have anything.
It's about want. We don't NEED to have Breeloom for instance.
It's not a matter of NEED but want.

Except for someone I have spoken to privately, none of you are actually saying whether or not it is effective in doing what it seeks out to do.

 

[Ming-Ming]

hat's why we're having this discussion. Nothing is "obviously" broken (at least not in this round!).

Well, my thing was, why is there such a huge debate on Rain itself? I just figured putting a Suspect test on Drizzle would at least clear up some theorymon from everyone's head, s'all.

 

[ensoriki]

Well, my thing was, why is there such a huge debate on Rain itself? I just figured putting a Suspect test on Drizzle would at least clear up some theorymon from everyone's head, s'all.

I say the clause would remove more theory mon.

Since you can then properly see if it's just Swift Swim that makes Drizzle this "force" or not.
While simultaneously being able to see RD + Swift swim teams , and RD + Swift swim and Manaphy teams.

All at once.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Well, my thing was, why is there such a huge debate on Rain itself? I just figured putting a Suspect test on Drizzle would at least clear up some theorymon from everyone's head, s'all.

That's exactly why Drizzle is a Suspect this time around (as it got a simple majority in Round 1). The problem is that we "are not sure" about what exactly is broken, as "infinite rain" is more of a playstyle than anything. Is it Drizzle, Swift Swim, abuser X/Y/Z, Specs Hydro Pump? I'd say for now it's the third option, but...


They should've given Drizzle to Kingdra instead. One less Swift Swimmer!

 

[PttP]

just a question but whats up with all the fucking politoed/birdgenie/manaphy/kingdra/natt/toxicroak teams

bijiron might be in the place of one of those pokes but seriously ive seen like 7 different users using the same exact team

 

[capefeather]

We don't NEED to have anything.
It's about want. We don't NEED to have Breeloom for instance.
It's not a matter of NEED but want.

Except for someone I have spoken to privately, none of you are actually saying whether or not it is effective in doing what it seeks out to do.

It definitely does what it seeks out to do. Unfortunately, it runs into a fundamental difference in opinion from its opposition. The point on my end is that an "ideal" prospective competitive player would look at the ruleset that we've set up and generally be happier with a simpler ruleset than a more complicated one. A simpler ruleset doesn't "get in the way" of actually playing the game as much as a more complicated ruleset does. Your solution disregards this entirely, but I suppose that that's just your decision and you're free to do that. I just thought that I'd try to explain why people would oppose it.

 

[ensoriki]

I see your point Cape.
I would say it's not too complex.
With the idea that if it's ability is not released it's not usable in standard I think players already get a gist of that on our current server.

If anything in terms of implementation on to a cart. I think a verbal agreement of "Don't use toad and a swift swimmer" is easier to understand than say "only use sleep once" and the issues that come out of that, where "if you caused sleep while sleep clause was in effect because of THIS reason, then you must forfeit, but if because of THAT reason then it's okay."
At a casual glance maybe but a warning message popping up saying "this team violates Drizzle clause" when using Find battle for instance seems like it makes this process quite stream lined.

 

[capefeather]

Honestly, I'm not even sure of what I think about Sleep Clause, lol.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

If there are no abusers, no one will use it. And if no one uses it, a playstyle dies. Your way kills a playstyle too.

Ban Drizzle, and it becomes less viable. Ban abusers, and it becomes unviable.

Jesus. We don't want to ban every single abuser, only the "most prominent ones" (derp Kingdra). Is it really that difficult to understand?

just a question but whats up with all the fucking politoed/birdgenie/manaphy/kingdra/natt/toxicroak teams

bijiron might be in the place of one of those pokes but seriously ive seen like 7 different users using the same exact team

Well... They're good.