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

[shrang]

I disagree with banning drizzle + dory. To me, it seems to be a double standard. Banning a sweeper (it will end up being two, sandslash is not much worse, trading off a bit of power and speed, still outspeeding scarfchomp, for no mach punch weakness) for one case and then banning the weather for the other. Especially since banning the best 2 or 3 swift swimmers (Kabutops may be good, but its very fragile, and priority will have its head, so I don't think it needs banning) for rain will probably make it non-broken as well. (And manaphy I guess, but Latios, birijion, some others, outpseed it and trash it. I'm not convinced its broken, even with rain. It also has 4-moveslot syndrome- energy ball or ice beam?)

I don't agree with this bit. The difference (to me, at least), is that Drizzle makes a whole bunch of Pokemon broken (Kingdra, Manaphy, Kabutops, Ludicolo), while in the sand, Doryuuzu is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb.

EDIT: And seriously, I battled a full-on anti-rain team with stuff like Scarf Altaria, Toxicroak, Nattorei, Quagsire all on the same team. I mean, it was well made and all, but rain isn't THAT scary, is it??

 

[SlimMan]

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

So when someone says to "go after the abusers", I must assume that Kingdra suddenly became a plural term. Okay.

 

[Benlisted]

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?

Admittedly a casual person coming into pokemon would have some confusion about why an ability on a pokemon were banned. But similarly, they would likely ask why inconsistent was, and why non Legendaries were in Gen 4. I honestly don't think that a ban of an ability on a pokemon is too complicated, the problem would be if there were a very many pokemon which were only broken with one ability. Thankfully, very few abilities seem that contentious, and many Ubers only get one ability or are so simply because of stats and movepool.

I agree with the guy who said that need is not the right word - it is what we see as a desirable metagame. I suppose that personally, I see a little more complication as a saacrifice I'm willing to make in order to maintain a playstyle. Others may see differently.

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.

We don't ask anyone to want to ban some of their team in order to make it unbroken. Simply it is an alternative to completly removing Rain, which seems like it may happen at present. Anyway the definition of broken is incredibly hard to define for Drizzle. By itself, it does very little - only with abuse from other pokemon can it become broken, so we have to choose whether to ban the source of brokenness or those facilitating it.

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...

Precisely. Despite the support for banning Swift Swim, SS pokes, or some combination instead of Drizzle, no consensus has even been reached on whether Rain itself had any truly broken aspect. Manaphy was being heralded as what made Rain broken by some before the current discussion started, and it would still be wise to only test Drizzle after Manaphy is gone.

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.

True. However in order to get into competitive Pokemon, you have to be familiar with the workings of hundreds of moves and abilities, their distribution on pokemon whose stats it is very helpful to have a good idea of, without mentioning EVs, Natures, IVs, items and such. Pokemon is inherently a very complicated game, and I think this may be one of the reasons why I am not averse to making its rulset a tad more complicated. Those who will be discussing the ban will be able to cope with a more complicated new rule, and those who are more casual will most probably just deal with it even if they aren't sure of the reasons behind the ban. Someone new to the game is likely to evolve from the latter state to the former; if the complex nature of the game already doesn't put them off then they will learn as they go along.

@Slimman: Kingdrei are a large group of Kingdra, you know ;). But yeah, Essentially the reason i say that is for simplicity's sake, whenever I refer to making abuserS suspect, I mean testing them one by one to see if they are the broken factors making overpowering. Not all of them should be banned by any means, just those which facilitate Rain's supposed brokenness.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

So when someone says to "go after the abusers", I must assume that Kingdra suddenly became a plural term. Okay.

...Kingdra, Kabutops, Ludicolo, maybe Gorebyss.


Is that enough for you, or do you think we were referring to the whole Pokédex???

 

[capefeather]

There's a difference between the mechanics and extra rules put on them, though. Mechanics constitute the game itself, and one can simply dive into it and learn it that way, or read guides. Learning "the game" is an obvious part of the experience, while learning "the rules" isn't really. This distinction has been somewhat dulled by the presence and use of simulators, notably with the egg move "illegalities" that look like rules when they'd be mechanics in the real games.

 

[ensoriki]

Is a metagame, not a game within a game?
You can impose your own rules on a metagame, and Smogon has for years, I don't see much of an issue.
If a clause is straight forward, it's simple. Like species clause.
Questions about how it works don't need to be asked, you just need to know what it entails for you when playing.

 

[Arc Tech]

I don't agree with this bit. The difference (to me, at least), is that Drizzle makes a whole bunch of Pokemon broken (Kingdra, Manaphy, Kabutops, Ludicolo), while in the sand, Doryuuzu is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb.

EDIT: And seriously, I battled a full-on anti-rain team with stuff like Scarf Altaria, Toxicroak, Nattorei, Quagsire all on the same team. I mean, it was well made and all, but rain isn't THAT scary, is it??

True, but once it is released, sandslash is an easy replacement for doryuuzu. It is not any worse than balloon doryuuzu. It trades off a mach punch weakness for not being as strong as LO dory (it is equally strong as balloon dory with earth plate except x-scizzor, and stronger with LO). And I think that Kingdra and Ludicolo would be banned to start with, Kabutops either loses to natty or priority, and there are more physically defensive grass types then special. Manaphy's somewhat different, as in it is debatedly broken without rain- and running rest gives it 4-moveslot syndrome as well. So 2 vs 2 or 3... not much difference.

 

[Benlisted]

There's a difference between the mechanics and extra rules put on them, though. Mechanics constitute the game itself, and one can simply dive into it and learn it that way, or read guides. Learning "the game" is an obvious part of the experience, while learning "the rules" isn't really. This distinction has been somewhat dulled by the presence and use of simulators, notably with the egg move "illegalities" that look like rules when they'd be mechanics in the real games.

Yeah that is true. People will always restrict the game to be more to their tastes though. On Wifi you see people saying no focus sash, no SR, no Lv1s, no Legendaries, etc, and the individual rulesets of this environ makes it very hard to follow. The simplest way would be to utterly follow Gamefreak's rulset for Wifi, but why that isn't a good idea for a healthy meta I'm sure we already know. I know you don't know how you feel on Sleep Clause, so I'm sorry that I'm bringing it up again. It is however the main example of the community messing with mechanics to have something more preferable to them, rather than just implementing rules. This can be immensely confusing for new players who try to sleepspam you to death on PO and are somewhat befuddled when it doesn't work. Like you say, with the advent of simulators, the line between the original game and our version of it is increasingly blurred. This is another reason why I think making a ban that is conditional in having an ability isn't too bad. I don't think it oversteps the mark of too much community interference in the original game, essentially.

Edit: Somewhat Ninja'd by ensoriki.

 

[SlimMan]

...Kingdra, Kabutops, Ludicolo, maybe Gorebyss.

Now if only everyone could express what they want banned in as clear a manner as you! What a happy Smogon that would be!

But seriously, "abusers" is sufficiently vague for me to interpret it in the way that I did.

edit: Gorebyss ties with Scarfed base 80's with a Timid nature in rain. Not to mention its non-existant bulk and lack of a good secondary STAB. The only way I see it being a suspect is if Shell Break were to get nominated.
lol@ Shell Break being broken

Is that enough for you, or do you want me to list the whole Pokedex???

Please do. It may occupy you long enough that you miss the post where someone interprets differently than you. It may save us one unnecessary argument.

 

[Miscellaneous]

True. However in order to get into competitive Pokemon, you have to be familiar with the workings of hundreds of moves and abilities, their distribution on pokemon whose stats it is very helpful to have a good idea of, without mentioning EVs, Natures, IVs, items and such. Pokemon is inherently a very complicated game, and I think this may be one of the reasons why I am not averse to making its rulset a tad more complicated. Those who will be discussing the ban will be able to cope with a more complicated new rule, and those who are more casual will most probably just deal with it even if they aren't sure of the reasons behind the ban. Someone new to the game is likely to evolve from the latter state to the former; if the complex nature of the game already doesn't put them off then they will learn as they go along.

That is an awful policy. Thousands of people who play competitively, using our banlists, do not post on smogon. The "elite" here should not decide rules for themselves and their own benefit, nor should they morph the ruleset into what best suits them. Competitive pokemon is hard enough to "get into" without even taking into consideration tiers, banlists, illegal movesets, Ev distribution, clauses. Do you really want to add on another 101 rules that will make competitive pokemon nothing less than unattractive to new players? This is why I'm in favour of adhering to game mechanics, because otherwise users take the issue too far. Whether or not "better" players can easily accept the new rules is completely irrelevant, only whether players in general can easily accept rules is a good argument for implenting rules.

The immediate issue I see with stage 2 is that manaphy and drizzle are simitaneously suspects, does it not occur to anyone else that either could be interdependantly broken in relationship to the other? Rain isn't uncounterable regardless, and honestly I have never had Manaphy problems in the past. Manaphy is not at all as effective in real battles as initial thoughts or theorymon may initally suggest, it always must lack either bulk, speed, or attack. There are far better defensive opinions than Manaphy if you're not attacking. Drizzle in my mind is a boost that rain teams needed in 5th gen in order to contest with other strategies. If one had to be banned, it should probably be drizzle, because that is the most notable and effective way of powering up "rain", and it is rain which seems to be the main theme of this stage of the suspect test.

Is a metagame, not a game within a game?
You can impose your own rules on a metagame, and Smogon has for years, I don't see much of an issue.
If a clause is straight forward, it's simple. Like species clause.
Questions about how it works don't need to be asked, you just need to know what it entails for you when playing.

Smogon has always adhered to the game mechanics of the cateridge. Smogon has never implented rules, we have implented restrictions known as clauses. Clauses preceed bans. Banlists exist to create extra metagames to play. Nintendo themselves implented both banlists and clauses into the game mechanics.

The difference between creating clauses (that were Nintendo's idea) to create a metagame and creating clauses or rules for a metagame is a difference I hope you can make here. There is also a simplicity issue i have already stated

 

[ginganinja]

well after battling many rain teams (including Shrangs) I believe that its pokemon such as Manaphy and Kingdra that are most dangerous in rain. Personally I would rather we ban the "Rain Abusers" such as Manaphy and Kingdra before we ban Drizzle. if it turns out that nearly every Swift Swimmer is broken (which I don't yet believe to be the case) then its the ability that is to blame rather than the Abusers.

 

[SlimMan]

ugh.......
too lazy to quote a lot
so I'm going for the good old respond-in-quote tactic

well after battling many rain teams (including Shrangs) I believe that its pokemon such as Manaphy and Kingdra that are most dangerous in rain.

Makes sense to me.

Personally I would rather we ban the "Rain Abusers" such as Manaphy and Kingdra before we ban Drizzle.

Oh look, you clarified exactly which abusers you were referring to. No confusion now. *did you see that, MwL?*

Seriously, though, I still disagree, but it's my opinion that your wrong. Not a fact. So that's fine.

if it turns out that nearly every Swift Swimmer is broken (which I don't yet believe to be the case) then its the abusers who are to blame not the ability.

wait, what?

You just said that if a large number of pokemon are broken in rain, it is the fault of each individual abuser, rather than rain.

I understand if you're saying that you think Swift Swim would be the broken thing instead of Drizzle. But if you're saying that all the pokemon are each broken and Drizzle is fine, then I'd be curious to know how you came to that conclusion.

 

[ginganinja]

lol yes that was a typo. I menat to say that if a large number of abusers are broken its the fault of the Drizzle ability rather than the abusers. Post has been edited to fix that typo.

 

[SlimMan]

lol yes that was a typo. I menat to say that if a large number of abusers are broken its the fault of the Drizzle ability rather than the abusers. Post has been edited to fix that typo.

oh ok. That makes much more sense.


Anyway, Manaphy deserves a test without rain, and rain deserves a test without Manaphy. That much is certain.
Although, the complexity involved in making two separate suspect tests is probably not worth it.

 

[Benlisted]

That is an awful policy. Thousands of people who play competitively, using our banlists, do not post on smogon. The "elite" here should not decide rules for themselves and their own benefit, nor should they morph the ruleset into what best suits them. Competitive pokemon is hard enough to "get into" without even taking into consideration tiers, banlists, illegal movesets, Ev distribution, clauses. Do you really want to add on another 101 rules that will make competitive pokemon nothing less than unattractive to new players? This is why I'm in favour of adhering to game mechanics, because otherwise users take the issue too far. Whether or not "better" players can easily accept the new rules is completely irrelevant, only whether players in general can easily accept rules is a good argument for implenting rules.

Sorry, I was not suggesting this as an actual policy, merely making a comment on the state of the community as I see it at present. Apologies if it sounded like I wanted to go "screw the casuals mwahaha they shall play by the rules of the elite." I see where it may seem like I'm trying to alter the rules for my own preference, but I honestly believe that the metagame would be more diverse and better if Drizzle were not banned - and I was trying to mediate an appropriate response to the varying opinions about that. I understand that adding a conditional ban such as an ability+pokemon complicates matters to some extent - but my point is that the degree to which it does so is not so great that the metagame we play would become much more complex to the degree that it puts people off. In terms of this moving from the original game, I just think that we have already implmented clauses and such with effects unlike the actual game, and that it will not lead to a slippery slope of deviation from theactual game.

The immediate issue I see with stage 2 is that manaphy and drizzle are simitaneously suspects, does it not occur to anyone else that either could be interdependantly broken in relationship to the other? Rain isn't uncounterable regardless, and honestly I have never had Manaphy problems in the past. Manaphy is not at all as effective in real battles as initial thoughts or theorymon may initally suggest, it always must lack either bulk, speed, or attack. There are far better defensive opinions than Manaphy if you're not attacking. Drizzle in my mind is a boost that rain teams needed in 5th gen in order to contest with other strategies. If one had to be banned, it should probably be drizzle, because that is the most notable and effective way of powering up "rain", and it is rain which seems to be the main theme of this stage of the suspect test.

The suggestion that both are interdependent in their brokenness seems to resonate with the other discussions on Swift Swim and such. As I've explained a lot in this thread though, I think oppositely on which should be banned, but I wan't go into that again.

well after battling many rain teams (including Shrangs) I believe that its pokemon such as Manaphy and Kingdra that are most dangerous in rain. Personally I would rather we ban the "Rain Abusers" such as Manaphy and Kingdra before we ban Drizzle. if it turns out that nearly every Swift Swimmer is broken (which I don't yet believe to be the case) then its the ability that is to blame rather than the Abusers.

This sums up how I feel pretty much.

 

[ensoriki]

Smogon has always adhered to the game mechanics of the cateridge. Smogon has never implented rules, we have implented restrictions known as clauses. Clauses preceed bans. Banlists exist to create extra metagames to play. Nintendo themselves implented both banlists and clauses into the game mechanics.

The difference between creating clauses (that were Nintendo's idea) to create a metagame and creating clauses or rules for a metagame is a difference I hope you can make here. There is also a simplicity issue i have already stated

Simplicity shouldn't be a factor in the clause unless you speak of coding.
It's quite straight forward, it's black & white. Forming a team? Including Politoed? You won't be able to use anything with Swift swim on that team then.
Building a team with Swift swim in mind? You don't bring Politoed then, the combination is restricted.

 

[XienZo]

Simplicity shouldn't be a factor in the clause unless you speak of coding.
It's quite straight forward, it's black & white. Forming a team? Including Politoed? You won't be able to use anything with Swift swim on that team then.
Building a team with Swift swim in mind? You don't bring Politoed then, the combination is restricted.

Why not expand it to more though? Like, you're allowed to have Ho-Oh as long as you don't have a Rapid Spinner or a Drought user? Or, what if you can have Lugia as long as you don't use any other walls?

 

[ensoriki]

It's not a matter of pokemon per say, but ability combinations.
Combinations of ability that are "too much".

Applying the concept to anything is basically just nitpicking. It's a limitation on ability synergy. If you were going to go off a slippery slope off this, you could've done it with the Soul Dew clause already or the evasion clause banning 2 moves but not evasion itself. Ho-Oh and Lugia are also powerful enough on their own individually those limitations wouldn't suddenly make them legal.
Unless your saying that Ho-Oh and Lugia are not powerful enough if there isn't a Spinner, Drought or a secondary wall...

 

[XienZo]

Ho-Oh and Lugia are also powerful enough on their own individually those limitations wouldn't suddenly make them legal.
Unless your saying that Ho-Oh and Lugia are not powerful enough if there isn't a Spinner, Drought or a secondary wall...

Mmm, so what if we only let you use Ho-oh if your entire team was weak to Rock, and for Lugia, you couldn't have any recovery move on your team.

 

[ensoriki]

Those would be extremes, so absurd in their design it does not compute to make them exist.
A melodramatic argument is not necessarily a reasonable one.
You put Lugia in with no ability to recover, Your taking away from pokemons inherent functions, their movepools for the sake of what "balance?" which is closer to the evasion clause.
Attacking something based on the potential for additional clauses, is absurd.
Unless you wish to do the same for Sleep, Freeze, Evasion, OHKO & soul dew.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

...And you're taking away from a playstyle's inherent functions by restricting Drizzle usage with Swift Swim...

 

[capefeather]

But what is an "inherent function"? What if Lugia never got a recovery move until Gen 5? Is it an "inherent function" then? What if Politoed had Drizzle ever since Advance? What if Drizzle was its only ability?

 

[XienZo]

Those would be extremes, so absurd in their design it does not compute to make them exist.
A melodramatic argument is not necessarily a reasonable one.
You put Lugia in with no ability to recover, Your taking away from pokemons inherent functions, their movepools for the sake of what "balance?" which is closer to the evasion clause.

Fine, let's just make it so that the rest of your pokemon can't be Dragon/Ground/Ice resists.

But anyhow, why not the Ho-oh with only SR-weak pokes and no Rapid Spin? It could probably be handled decently, and it's not complicated either; you just choose between Ho-oh and SR-neutral/resist pokes.

 

[ensoriki]

...And you're taking away from a playstyle's inherent functions by restricting Drizzle usage with Swift Swim...

No.
The "inherent" functions of a rain team would be the rain itself, which is brought up by more than just politoed.

But what is an "inherent function"? What if Lugia never got a recovery move until Gen 5? Is it an "inherent function" then? What if Politoed had Drizzle ever since Advance? What if Drizzle was its only ability?

I would consider it their roles outside of their abilities.
Like suddenly banning Encore on Wobbufet.

Fine, let's just make it so that the rest of your pokemon can't be Dragon/Ground/Ice resists.

But anyhow, why not the Ho-oh with only SR-weak pokes and no Rapid Spin? It could probably be handled decently, and it's not complicated either; you just choose between Ho-oh and SR-neutral/resist pokes.

I suppose it's an interesting argument, that puts me in a difficult situation, where the difference is that Ho-Oh is Uber based on it's own individual merit not a synergy with a specific ability.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

No.
The "inherent" functions of a rain team would be the rain itself, which is brought up by more than just politoed.



I would consider it their roles outside of their abilities.
Like suddenly banning Encore on Wobbufet.

...What if Politoed only had Drizzle since Advance? What makes Lugia's recovering abilities more inherent than Politoed's weather summoning this generation? And more things abuse Rain than Swift Swim, so why propose a Clause only for the ability?