-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
np: OU Suspect Testing Round 2 - Who am I to break tradition?
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
Then why can I still have an Octillery on my team? Then why hasn't my Bibarel been banned?
I'm not disagreeing with your side, cuz I don't even know what I want anymore. I'm just saying that you made a ridiculous statement.
Inconsistent's luck factor was a major influence in it getting banned, however. I believe smogon policy stresses that the skill-factor of a metagame is more important than if the metagame is overcentralized, so Inconsistent's treatment is based more on its most adverse effect, the removal of a major amount of skill in favor of sheer luck, rather than the secondary effect of centralizing the metagame.
Basically, the worst part about it was that it removed skill, and thus was treated differently like the evasion/OHKO clauses were. (Yes, it overcentralized massively too, but the more common it became in the metagame, the more it introduced luck as well, so the increased centralization also increased the luck factor a proportional amount.)
The broken rain, however, has basically negligible effect on the skill/luck factor, and thus should be treated as something that primarily is problematic because of its overcentralization.
And that, again, is restricting a broken pokemon to keep it balanced, instead of banning it, which goes against smogon policy; it would simply be as absurd as just banning Yache berry and/or Sword Dance on 4th gen Garchomp, as those are also the reasons that if removed, would let Garchomp be balanced.
We don't ban bits of the metagame to balance the pokemon; we ban the pokemon to balance the metagame.
Just noticed your colossal edit. Anyway, I used gen 5 as an example. Before drizzle was around. In rain, Swift swim was not overpowering. Kingdra ludi and kabu didn't even barely get play. Drizzle made a huge 180, giving a normal, balanced strategy power it could only have imagined before.
The turn count is a huge difference, and problem. The added versatility with an extra move and power with LO on pokes that used to not run it are a huge difference. In 8 turns, most normal teams lose 1-3 pokemon (between 3 of the opponent's pokemon), but normally stall out the rain with para, prediction (as they are formulaic sets except for kingdra) and good general bulk.
You guys seem to think that drizzle is some kind of Key or something that unlocks swift swimmers... Turns out that is a perfect reason to support ban it. Banning a pokemon for one of its 2-3 abilities is unprecidented, especially if it has been balanced in the past in gen 5 (before drizzle). Wob was banned because he only got shadow tag, with no other ability. Banning an ability has happened with inconsistent, an ability that was clearly broken on clearly not broken pokemon. But that ability was broken by itself on all users, which swift swim obviously isn't.
Yet we all can agree that Drizzle makes swift swim powerful. We see a gen 5 without drizzle that had no rain power whatsoever, showing that clearly the swift swim ability isn't breaking the individual pokemon that are using it (as they are normally paralyzed, killed , or forced out). So, swift swim AND the pokemon that use them aren't broken by themselves... but then Drizzle comes in and swift swim becomes an overpowered ability? The pokemon that use it become Ubers? no. The pokemon are the same. You just get to use them in a stronger, more versatile, and much longer lasting way.
And it doesn't matter if Kingdra and co gained power or were given power; if they're too powerful, that's that.
Hippo/T-tar also unlock Dory and Randorosu, but that is clearly not reason to ban Sand Stream, nor would the parallel circumstance in rain be a reason to ban Drizzle.
The pokemon are the same? A BL Pokemon that appeared sometimes on teams and could easily be walled is the same as the one that forces people to carry 1 out of 2-3 actual counters now?
We don't measure pokemon's broken-ness by their moves, ability, etc. We use their influence on the metagame to see. Kingdra and co have the exact same TECHNICAL things-- the same things that play no direct role in whether a pokemon is broken or not. The only way they changed, the way they influence the metagame, is the ONLY way that matters as to whether they are broken or not.
Consider this:
Imagine if Salamence was only broken last gen because of Outrage. Imagine also that no other Pokemon that had Outrage was broken. Finally, imagine if we considered banning Platinum move tutors because Salamence got Outrage from them and was broken because of it. We wouldn't do that though, because other Pokemon benefit from move tutors, such as Scizor with Bullet Punch. We also wouldn't ban Outrage, since Outrage is fine on everything else that has it. We would ban Salamence, since Outrage broke it.
It's pretty much the same idea with our situation (with "broken Rain Pokemon X" instead of "Salamence", "Drizzle" instead of "Platinum move tutors", and "Rain benefits/Swift Swim" instead of "Outrage") except there are more Salamence-like Pokemon.
This is basically what Xien Zo is suggesting to my understanding.
I know that Salamence wasn't only broken by Outrage; I'm just trying to give an example that might make it easier to comprehend.
Imagine if Salamence was only broken last gen because of Outrage. Imagine also that no other Pokemon that had Outrage was broken. Finally, imagine if we considered banning Platinum move tutors because Salamence got Outrage from them and was broken because of it. We wouldn't do that though, because other Pokemon benefit from move tutors, such as Scizor with Bullet Punch. We also wouldn't ban Outrage, since Outrage is fine on everything else that has it. We would ban Salamence, since Outrage broke it.
It's pretty much the same idea with our situation (with "broken Rain Pokemon X" instead of "Salamence", "Drizzle" instead of "Platinum move tutors", and "Rain benefits/Swift Swim" instead of "Outrage") except there are more Salamence-like Pokemon.
This is basically what Xien Zo is suggesting to my understanding.
I know that Salamence wasn't only broken by Outrage; I'm just trying to give an example that might make it easier to comprehend.
Argument by analogy only works if the analogy is valid. Banning move tutors ruins dozens of sets, along with any strategies built around those sets, while the only thing that really needs infinite rain is rain stall, which doesn't seem to be very popular anyway. However, to continue your analogy, Salamence without Outrage wouldn't be broken, and its other sets could be a part of other strategies, but those sets were also banned as an unfortunate side effect.
I never claimed Rain is broken. Don't put words in my mouth. I've have always been arguing under the premise that the abusers are what's broken.
Now yes, they are broken because of rain. And yes, one would effectively nerf all three conveniently back into non-existence, because they're brokenness wouldn't be as spammable. But we don't ban the reasons a Pokemon is broken, we ban the Pokemon themselves. Banning Drizzle can be acquainted to a far more effective version of banning Yache Berry on Garchomp. In this case it actually does fix the problem, but it's going out of our way to over simplify things, and unnecessarily ban. Just ban what's broken and be done. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand.
Really, then how all of a sudden are they uncounterable? With every pokemon that ever existed still being in the metagame?
Do you know why?
No one's ever seriously played Rain as a strategy long enough to even notice, or develop the sets that were uncounterable.
That's why your "refutations" are bad and illogical, and why 4th gen thinking shouldn't be reapplied. Trust, me I just like the next person thought them completely underwhelming last gen, this coming from the guy who previously said it was the most common playstyle that I used (Nice reading comprehension by the way, you still missed that I never said most common overall and specifically referred to myself in that earlier post).
Just gonna say this:
Consider rain now. You only need to switch in Politoed to set up rain, and only need to worry about your opponent switching in a weather changer not called Politoed. Politoed also has a type advantage over every single other weather changer and reasonable bulk, so it can pretty safely switch in on other weather changers if need be.
Now consider 4th gen rain. You had to use a moveslot and item slot on 2-3 Pokemon just to set up rain, which leaves you concerned with Taunt (and even more so now since Mischevious Heart Taunt exists) and what your opponent could potentially do in the turn it takes you to set up rain, which is also 1/8 turns of rain you have to utilize. Then, you have to switch to your sweeper of choice, which is 2/8. Then you set up, which is 3/8 turns, and go from there until you run out of turns; this means you have to worry about what walls you and potentially waste turns switching when said wall comes out. Then, when you run out of rain, you have to rinse and repeat; the problem with this is your opponent knows that you want to set up rain again and can use that to their advantage to do pretty much whatever they want.
Now, can you honestly say that rain without Drizzle would be broken in OU?
Consider rain now. You only need to switch in Politoed to set up rain, and only need to worry about your opponent switching in a weather changer not called Politoed. Politoed also has a type advantage over every single other weather changer and reasonable bulk, so it can pretty safely switch in on other weather changers if need be.
Now consider 4th gen rain. You had to use a moveslot and item slot on 2-3 Pokemon just to set up rain, which leaves you concerned with Taunt (and even more so now since Mischevious Heart Taunt exists) and what your opponent could potentially do in the turn it takes you to set up rain, which is also 1/8 turns of rain you have to utilize. Then, you have to switch to your sweeper of choice, which is 2/8. Then you set up, which is 3/8 turns, and go from there until you run out of turns; this means you have to worry about what walls you and potentially waste turns switching when said wall comes out. Then, when you run out of rain, you have to rinse and repeat; the problem with this is your opponent knows that you want to set up rain again and can use that to their advantage to do pretty much whatever they want.
Now, can you honestly say that rain without Drizzle would be broken in OU?
Rain isn't broken, the abusers are. Consider that. If you mean Rain as a Strategy, then most definitely not. But I've never asserted that it was. What I'm saying, and what I have always said, is that the abusers, when under rain, are broken; no matter what kind of Rain it is.
Now you're the one asserting that Rain is the problem? Am I in Bizarro world?
No, Rain isn't the problem. Rain just makes things wet. The abusers of rain abuse the weather condition to make them better. Hence the name, actually, it's rather kind of clever. Even then, not every abuser is broken even in the Rain. So how is it that you can possibly gather that Rain is the problem?
Really. So if the abusers didn't exist, rain would be broken? Because that's what you're saying when you say Rain is broken, rather than the abuser. I mean, when I hear abuser, I don't think that the thing getting abused is at fault, do you?
Really, we can argue all day as to whether we should ban Drizzle or the abusers. But what is overwhelming is that something has to be banned because something is inherently wrong with rain in the current metagame.
This all comes down to what we want in the standard metagame, which is OU. Either option has its benefits and downsides, but what we ("we" being PR and our general philosohpy) need to decide is which of these options conform better to what we want in a metagame, guidelines which currently don't exist. The fact that this issue has been debated for 50+ pages on what to ban to still no avail is proof enough, and quite honestly the arguments are quite repetitive that focus on either "why A is at fault and B is not" and "why banning A gives all these benefits and banning B gives all these downside." Really I can't see the first issue being resolved, even if this is debated for another 50 pages because both sides keep arguing in the abstract because this is an abstract issue. There is no way a guide can be set to determine what is at fault or use statistics to prove, in fact what is happening is trying to pin the blame down on one side when in fact both have something to do with it.
The second issue on the other hand, I think can be resolved. Banning either of these has quite clear pros and cons, but right now I don't think it can be conclusively said "these benefits outweigh the negatives by banning A more so than B." It's like apples and oranges, so to speak. But I think if a clear philosohpy was set on what we want in a metagame which deals with issues such as whether we want as few bans as possible, how we want our metagame to be centralised and to what extent we will go to make something viable and so on then we can see what path is the one we should take.
This all comes down to what we want in the standard metagame, which is OU. Either option has its benefits and downsides, but what we ("we" being PR and our general philosohpy) need to decide is which of these options conform better to what we want in a metagame, guidelines which currently don't exist. The fact that this issue has been debated for 50+ pages on what to ban to still no avail is proof enough, and quite honestly the arguments are quite repetitive that focus on either "why A is at fault and B is not" and "why banning A gives all these benefits and banning B gives all these downside." Really I can't see the first issue being resolved, even if this is debated for another 50 pages because both sides keep arguing in the abstract because this is an abstract issue. There is no way a guide can be set to determine what is at fault or use statistics to prove, in fact what is happening is trying to pin the blame down on one side when in fact both have something to do with it.
The second issue on the other hand, I think can be resolved. Banning either of these has quite clear pros and cons, but right now I don't think it can be conclusively said "these benefits outweigh the negatives by banning A more so than B." It's like apples and oranges, so to speak. But I think if a clear philosohpy was set on what we want in a metagame which deals with issues such as whether we want as few bans as possible, how we want our metagame to be centralised and to what extent we will go to make something viable and so on then we can see what path is the one we should take.
i just want to ask the people that oppose the banning of the broken sweepers(ludicolo,kabutops,kingdra) instead of drizzle,why they say that more rain sweepers are going to become overpowered and eventually break the metagame again?why are you saying that agility subpetaya empoleon,specs starmie etc will break the metagame?have you tested it?i don't think so...
i just think that we should give drizzle a chance witthout the most broken rain sweepers,and after this we will decide how the other rain sweepers are after we test them and have some evidence in our hands except pure theorymoning.to me banning perma-rain from ou instead of the broken trio,because more broken rain sweepers will pop up,seems like a ridiculous argument...if we ban drizzle,both rain offense and rain stall will vanish...running a dedicated rain dance team is much more difficult now for a lot of reasons such as:
1.there are 4 weather inducers instead of 3 last gen(not counting drizzle obviously)
2.mishcievous heart pokes and the general increase of taunt in general
3.team preview,wobbufet and the coming of new shadow tag pokes.from the team preview you can easily understand if you are fighting against a rain dance team or not...then it is very easy to isolate the pokes that set up rain and remove them from the picture making the rain sweepers medicocre at best without rain...
4.the generally more offensive metagame doesn't offer many oportunities to set up rain or at least do it several times.also the addition of many defensive threats hampers greatly rain dance team's potential(it is much easier to stall for 8 turns with pokes like burungeru and nattorei around).
i dont think that i should reason why rain stall will become non'existant without drizzle...rain stall wasn't even tempting with drizzle imagine with only 8 turns rain...
so my point is that banning the 3 most broken rain sweepers wil do the trick and achieve what we all want!it will keep rain balanced but not underpowered,which will be the case if drizzle gets banned,'cause rain offense and rain stall will still be very viable!in the meantime,if after some time we find other broken rain sweepers we will see how things go...we cannot say ''ban drizzle it is broken even without the broken trio'',cause we don't know it yet...
i just think that we should give drizzle a chance witthout the most broken rain sweepers,and after this we will decide how the other rain sweepers are after we test them and have some evidence in our hands except pure theorymoning.to me banning perma-rain from ou instead of the broken trio,because more broken rain sweepers will pop up,seems like a ridiculous argument...if we ban drizzle,both rain offense and rain stall will vanish...running a dedicated rain dance team is much more difficult now for a lot of reasons such as:
1.there are 4 weather inducers instead of 3 last gen(not counting drizzle obviously)
2.mishcievous heart pokes and the general increase of taunt in general
3.team preview,wobbufet and the coming of new shadow tag pokes.from the team preview you can easily understand if you are fighting against a rain dance team or not...then it is very easy to isolate the pokes that set up rain and remove them from the picture making the rain sweepers medicocre at best without rain...
4.the generally more offensive metagame doesn't offer many oportunities to set up rain or at least do it several times.also the addition of many defensive threats hampers greatly rain dance team's potential(it is much easier to stall for 8 turns with pokes like burungeru and nattorei around).
i dont think that i should reason why rain stall will become non'existant without drizzle...rain stall wasn't even tempting with drizzle imagine with only 8 turns rain...
so my point is that banning the 3 most broken rain sweepers wil do the trick and achieve what we all want!it will keep rain balanced but not underpowered,which will be the case if drizzle gets banned,'cause rain offense and rain stall will still be very viable!in the meantime,if after some time we find other broken rain sweepers we will see how things go...we cannot say ''ban drizzle it is broken even without the broken trio'',cause we don't know it yet...
Because of the nature of rain itself, in addition to the coverage of water types. There's also more to it than that. You get Steels/Grasses/Bugs(fwiw) with a reduced Fire weakness, and Electric types get a stab perfect acc. Thunder with no drawbacks. Suddenly, that list of "rain abusers" is must larger than you think.
And if we end up killing rain offense and rain stall, then so be it. If you haven't been following the thread, RO has been on the edge of some serious hate, so I think that would be more of a joy to most players than a blow. And rain stall is just nothing but a fancy argument made for the purpose of preserving Drizzle (let's face it, would you really run it on a good day?). I'd imagine it can't be that hard to live without.
ro has been on the edge of serious hate because of the abuse that everyone does to rain teams...everyone makes an easy built team with rain sweepers(mainly toxicroak,ludicolo,kabutops,kingdra)and takes easy wins without much thought(although that doesn't happen higher on the ladder but anyway).
without the broken trio noone of us can know what will happen with rain...no matter how much you talk to me about the broken nature of rain you cannot convince me without actual experience...we have to let the metagame mature without removing 2 entire playstyles(rain offense and rain stall,and also i am done arguing if rain stall is a gimmick or no,'cause i know it is a viable tactic that hasn't been seeing any use just because of the overcentraliazation that the broken trio creates)and that can be done by removing the 2 or 3 main sweepers(maybe kabutops can stay i don't know)....
I believe that you are missing the point. When a rain abuser switchs in (ill use Kingdra as an example) under rain its ability kicks in and (if it has swift swim) it gets a speed boost. Many Rain abusers get a Double STAB boost while also in the rain. So under Rain its very easy to get an insanely fast and very hard hitting pokemon to blast through your opponents team.
This is the Move itself (since technically it is Drizzle giving an auto Rain dance upon entry) giving you those boosts. Swift Swim, Hydration all activate when RAIN is active. The abilities are essentually useless without Rain. Even ignoring the abilities that Rain affects remember that key double Stab hitting everything not resistant to Water extremely hard and allowing pokemon to muscle through counters with that extra power. For example Kabutops without Rain gets walled even by Skarmory. Stone Edge will never 2KO Defensive versions with SR. However, in the Rain Kabutops has about a 60% chance to 2KO and removing your physical wall from the game.
Bottom Line its Rain which triggers the abilities and gives the STAB boosts (and everything else it brings to the table) which affects the brokenness of things not the other way round.
i like how you are using 2 of the four rain suspects for this + then turn around and say that even without them rain will still be broken when it will have other pokes that don't do the job as well but still do the job well enough but without being broken.
The only problem is infinite rain. It makes lots of pokes (and not only swift swim ones) broken, and impossible to stop without a sand team or a rain team, unless you have 4/5 anti rd pokes (then u get destroyed by sand).
Drizzle is Uber because the support characteristic
Drizzle is Uber because the support characteristic
no i'm sick of saying this if the support characteristic applied all rain absers would be broken not just a small handful rain offense however is broken because some of the abusers are the handful that is pushed over the edge. before anyone argues rain stall isn't good, in a heavily offensive meta stall struggles even well established stall cores so a stall play-style that hasn't had an opportunity to establish itself is liable to be ignored until there is an occasion in which offense isn't as overpowering. not used doesn't necessarily mean bad.
We are not banning sand itself because there are other playstyles around that benefit from infinite sand, and there are currently far fewer abusers. As for rain, it is somewhat ambiguous what the best abusers are, and the are definitely overcentralizing. In any case, Doryuuzu is being banned because it breaks sand, not the other way around.
More than a 60%, after Swords Dance unless Skarmory has Sturdy, it can ohko with Stealth Rock damage or other (92.31%). Floatzel can 2 hit ko after Bulk Up (and come on, Waterfall flinch is quite possible with that speed), Qwilfish 2 hit ko, etc.
Floatzel was an underrated pokemon before. But nonetheless, Drizzle makes loads of things insanely powerful. And the ability of Floatzel to own Terakion (and Rock Polish Terakion in rain), Landlos, Garchomp maybe with Ice Punch (watch out for Yache), Hippowdon, Tyranitar after Bulk Up/lucky Waterfall flinch, Gliscor, and almost everything on a sand team is pretty dang cool. It 2 hit koes Burungeru after Bulk Up with Crunch. Also, after Bulk Up, murders Latias/Latios.
Speed is good for Floatzel.
wow so if there are poke(s)that breaks sand i should be banned but if there poke(s) that break rain, rain should be banned that is a horrible double standard + just because they aren't used doesn't mean that other rain styles don't exist most styles of sand based play have been already established that is not the case for rain + this approach is preventing them from being established.
- Status