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

[NC]

Perhaps it is somewhat arbitrary. But the majority of people who voted it feel that it is unacceptable while other things is, and the banning process is at least somewhat democratic.

I am aware of this, but in politics, this would fall under the "[Insert law here] is good because it's the law" type of argument. I am not calling for a reversal of the decision as obviously the majority of people wanted it banned. However, I am questioning the reasons and qualifications of the voters to blanket ban the entire ability. I wouldn't call it outrageous to say that there were likely some users that never used or played against the pokemon (glalie, remoraid, bidoof, snorunt) that I am saying should be (re?)tested.

It doesn't happen in one turn. Sub, Protect, repeat ad nauseam. You get a bunch of turns of guaranteed stalling, and that's if they break your sub every time and never miss.

There is no guarantee of this. You can be just as likely to get the wrong boosts (depending on the opponent), which would make the inconsistent user completely useless.

I can't speak for those people, but I don't really think that "bad Pokémon should stay bad" was the logic used here. Smeargle is not bad at all, and it would still have been banned if stuff like Scizor got it.

This was one of the arguments used (at least in the thread like this one). Stuff like "octillery is able to set up on zapdos" was often used, even though there is no inherent reason that it shouldn't be able to. The reason I mentioned tyranitar, scizor, gengar, etc. is that they also would be significantly worse without their abilities, although you aren't making this argument so it doesn't really apply to you.

 

[cosmicexplorer]

Attempting to quantify the luck (i.e. double team is MORE luck-based than rock slide) is not a real argument, as anything that involves chance involved "luck."

Incorrect. Luck can't be "quantified," as in put on a scale and measured, but the effects of certain aspects of the game, which happen to have a large measure of luck involved, either have effects that are far more gamebreaking than other luck-based aspects of the game, or are significantly easer to setup than other "luck-based strategies," and as such are banned. Everything banned at the moment has not been banned just for "introducing a new luck element into the game;" it has been banned for being overpowered.

Consider OHKO moves. They offer a one-hit KO, regardless of the defenses of the defending pokemon, or the attacking stats of the attacking pokemon. Smogon PR ruled it still to be too powerful, however luck-based it is, to be unbanned in standard play. Consider Inconsistent. That's hardly luck-based: if the Inconsistent user switches in on something slower than it is, or something that can't hurt it much, it is almost always going to win the match, unless the opponent carries some ridiculously inviable check. As such, it was voted to be overpowered by Smogon suspect voters.

Evasion was similarly found to be overpowered; its effect, making moves miss with such easy setup, along with the ability to Baton Pass the effects, was found to be overpowered, and thus banned from the standard metagame, by Smogon PR. The difference between these and other luck-inducing factors is that the banned items were voted to be overpowered, while other aspects of the game which involve luck, like the aforementioned No Guard DynamicPunch Machamp and critical hits, weren't voted to be overpowered. If it's broken, it'll (hopefully) get banned, but not because of the tenets of any weird philosophy over banning which you seem to believe that the majority of Smogon's community holds.

 

[NC]

Incorrect. Luck can't be "quantified," as in put on a scale and measured, but the effects of certain aspects of the game, which happen to have a large measure of luck involved, either have effects that are far more gamebreaking than other luck-based aspects of the game, or are significantly easer to setup than other "luck-based strategies," and as such are banned. Everything banned at the moment has not been banned just for "introducing a new luck element into the game;" it has been banned for being overpowered.

Consider OHKO moves. They offer a one-hit KO, regardless of the defenses of the defending pokemon, or the attacking stats of the attacking pokemon. Smogon PR ruled it still to be too powerful, however luck-based it is, to be unbanned in standard play. Consider Inconsistent. That's hardly luck-based: if the Inconsistent user switches in on something slower than it is, or something that can't hurt it much, it is almost always going to win the match, unless the opponent carries some ridiculously inviable check. As such, it was voted to be overpowered by Smogon suspect voters.

Evasion was similarly found to be overpowered; its effect, making moves miss with such easy setup, along with the ability to Baton Pass the effects, was found to be overpowered, and thus banned from the standard metagame, by Smogon PR. The difference between these and other luck-inducing factors is that the banned items were voted to be overpowered, while other aspects of the game which involve luck, like the aforementioned No Guard DynamicPunch Machamp and critical hits, weren't voted to be overpowered. If it's broken, it'll (hopefully) get banned, but not because of the tenets of any weird philosophy over banning which you seem to believe that the majority of Smogon's community holds.

That all could be true and everything but it is 100% theorymon. I could have said similar things about how overpowered and/or impossible to stop rhyperior, azelf and porygon z were going be to at the beginning of DP and it turned out that only azelf ended up being OU and not because of the nasty plot set. Why is it that deoxys-a (which looks unbelievably overpowered on paper) gets a test while double team doesn't?

I am glad that you want inconsistent banned based on its "overpoweredness" and I agree with you in that sense regarding octillery. How do we know though, if pokemon with worse typings and stats will have that same likelihood of winning if they are sent out? I played a good deal in the first suspect test and didn't encounter remoraid once, and I think most would say the same about how much they have seen the others apart from octillery.

 

[NijaSkills]

First of all, personal attacks are not necessary if you have good arguments on their own merit, and secondly, this "moral high ground" is completely irrelevant to the debate. The only reason I said that was in response to the trolling accusations, which I find laughable. If my points are so horrible and fallacious as you say, I would appreciate you actually responding to them. Out of the five posts on this page, only the first said anything of any substance.

My main question is this: Why is it that evasion, OHKOs, and inconsistent (on bidoof, remoraid, snorunt, and glalie) arbitrarily banned, yet things like brightpowder, snow cloak, confusion-inducing attacks, paralysis inducing attacks, moves with <100% accuracy or secondary effects, [insert more ridiculous things that absolutely involve chance], etc. are allowed? It can't be because they are too good, as we have no way to know that for sure, given that they have not been tested. It also can't be because of the luck involved because there is 0 difference between [the effects of] brightpowder and double team (saying you can boost double team would put it in the "too good" category I just addressed) and that would also require the other ridiculous things I mentioned to be banned as well. Attempting to quantify the luck (i.e. double team is MORE luck-based than rock slide) is not a real argument, as anything that involves chance involved "luck."

Evasion, OHKO's and the rest are arbitrarily banned because it turns the metagame into one based on luck rather than strategy. A +6 evasion boost gives a 100% accuracy move a 67% chance of missing, while brightpowder/sandveil/snowcloak can only give that move up to a 28% chance of missing when combined. Even a single evasion boost is a 33% chance of a miss.

The stat drops/additional effects from moves can make a difference, but they are both uncommon, and usually have a small effect. The ones that have a larger effect tend to be less likely. For example, the most damaging secondary effect is the freeze, and the most likely way to get a freeze on something would be to have a serene grace poke to use ice beam, and that only has a 20% chance. While flinches and parahax do make a difference, it is not as significant as having the majority of your moves miss.

That being said, you can bring up the serene grace para-flinch abusers. Yes, that makes you fail to attack most of the time, but it relies on multiple things: 1. They have to be faster than you to get the flinch, and 2. They have to paralyze every new pokemon that they go up against. The evasion boosts don't go down when they take out your pokemon, so one pokemon can easily sweep an entire team just because they can't hit it.

In summary, evasion boosting adds a frustrating, purely luck-based element to the metagame that is undesirable, and therefore was banned.

 

[Ninja_13]

That all could be true and everything but it is 100% theorymon. I could have said similar things about how overpowered and/or impossible to stop rhyperior, azelf and porygon z were going be to at the beginning of DP and it turned out that only azelf ended up being OU and not because of the nasty plot set. Why is it that deoxys-a (which looks unbelievably overpowered on paper) gets a test while double team doesn't?

I am glad that you want inconsistent banned based on its "overpoweredness" and I agree with you in that sense regarding octillery. How do we know though, if pokemon with worse typings and stats will have that same likelihood of winning if they are sent out? I played a good deal in the first suspect test and didn't encounter remoraid once, and I think most would say the same about how much they have seen the others apart from octillery.

The "strategy" behind using double team to try to dodge hits to a game-breaking degree has not changed from 4th gen to 5th gen. Meanwhile, the power creep of 5th gen means that Deoxys-A may have been less overpowering. Not comparable.

I haven't heard anything about Remoraid, but as I stated before, a log was posted of a Bidoof (who is statistically worse than Remoraid, btw) being used to 6-0 an Ubers team through Inconsistent. That's one out of many experiences players had while Inconsistent was unbanned. Your personal experience doesn't matter in the subject, it's the combined experience of the player base, and the combined experience of the player base said that Inconsistent was a broken ability that needed to be banned. This was given a testing period, too.

 

[NC]

Evasion, OHKO's and the rest are arbitrarily banned because it turns the metagame into one based on luck rather than strategy. A +6 evasion boost gives a 100% accuracy move a 67% chance of missing, while brightpowder/sandveil/snowcloak can only give that move up to a 28% chance of missing when combined. Even a single evasion boost is a 33% chance of a miss.

First, you cannot claim that it turns the metagame into one based on luck without having any experience in a metagame with them. Yes that number with +6 looks gamebreaking, but I could post similar outrageous statistics of pokemon with +6 attack or defense. The fact is that you don't just automatically get that +6 boost. You could say that double team will cause all the opponents moves to miss, but this is very unlikely, akin to relying on flinching multiple times in a row with iron head jirachi. Also, one evasion boost makes moves have 75% accuracy, not 66. It goes 100>75>60>50>~42>37.5>33.3, which leads me to believe that using double team those extra times may not even be optimal, let alone using it once in place of a defense boost.

The stat drops/additional effects from moves can make a difference, but they are both uncommon, and usually have a small effect. The ones that have a larger effect tend to be less likely. For example, the most damaging secondary effect is the freeze, and the most likely way to get a freeze on something would be to have a serene grace poke to use ice beam, and that only has a 20% chance. While flinches and parahax do make a difference, it is not as significant as having the majority of your moves miss.

Wouldn't this freeze effect be even more "gamebreaking" than evasion, no matter how likely it is to happen?

That being said, you can bring up the serene grace para-flinch abusers. Yes, that makes you fail to attack most of the time, but it relies on multiple things: 1. They have to be faster than you to get the flinch, and 2. They have to paralyze every new pokemon that they go up against. The evasion boosts don't go down when they take out your pokemon, so one pokemon can easily sweep an entire team just because they can't hit it.

In summary, evasion boosting adds a frustrating, purely luck-based element to the metagame that is undesirable, and therefore was banned.

That's your opinion, but as I said, there are plently of other things in the game mechanics that add "luck based elements" that are allowed and laughed at if someone nominates them as suspect.

The "strategy" behind using double team to try to dodge hits to a game-breaking degree has not changed from 4th gen to 5th gen. Meanwhile, the power creep of 5th gen means that Deoxys-A may have been less overpowering. Not comparable.

I don't believe they were tested in gen 4 either. Also, that "game-breaking" degree is completely in theory and has not been tested. Even if it had in gen 4, power creep could affect this also.

I haven't heard anything about Remoraid, but as I stated before, a log was posted of a Bidoof (who is statistically worse than Remoraid, btw) being used to 6-0 an Ubers team through Inconsistent. That's one out of many experiences players had while Inconsistent was unbanned. Your personal experience doesn't matter in the subject, it's the combined experience of the player base, and the combined experience of the player base said that Inconsistent was a broken ability that needed to be banned. This was given a testing period, too.

First, that bidoof log is completely irrelevant. Was the opposing player skilled, playing well, etc.? I could probably find some log of shedinja sweeping an ubers team unprepared for it, and regardless, performance in ubers a no effect on tiering for standard. See my last post about what the community thinks, I am not disputing that.

 

[masterful]

First of all, personal attacks are not necessary if you have good arguments on their own merit, and secondly, this "moral high ground" is completely irrelevant to the debate. The only reason I said that was in response to the trolling accusations, which I find laughable. If my points are so horrible and fallacious as you say, I would appreciate you actually responding to them. Out of the five posts on this page, only the first said anything of any substance.

My main question is this: Why is it that evasion, OHKOs, and inconsistent (on bidoof, remoraid, snorunt, and glalie) arbitrarily banned, yet things like brightpowder, snow cloak, confusion-inducing attacks, paralysis inducing attacks, moves with <100% accuracy or secondary effects, [insert more ridiculous things that absolutely involve chance], etc. are allowed? It can't be because they are too good, as we have no way to know that for sure, given that they have not been tested. It also can't be because of the luck involved because there is 0 difference between [the effects of] brightpowder and double team (saying you can boost double team would put it in the "too good" category I just addressed) and that would also require the other ridiculous things I mentioned to be banned as well. Attempting to quantify the luck (i.e. double team is MORE luck-based than rock slide) is not a real argument, as anything that involves chance involved "luck."

Those things are a matter of magnitude of luck introduced into the metagame. Brightpowder will almost never decide a match, and while Sand Veil is also incredibly annoying, the amount of luck required to win entirely through its use is so extreme poor players will rarely win regardless. There is a difference between saying "the lottery is stupid", and "walking around outside without wearing a helmet is stupid" simply because doing either introduces an aspect of luck into life. Magnitude is certainly an argument, and denying that is fallacious

 

[NC]

Those things are a matter of magnitude of luck introduced into the metagame. Brightpowder will almost never decide a match, and while Sand Veil is also incredibly annoying, the amount of luck required to win entirely through its use is so extreme poor players will rarely win regardless. There is a difference between saying "the lottery is stupid", and "walking around outside without wearing a helmet is stupid" simply because doing either introduces an aspect of luck into life. Magnitude is certainly an argument, and denying that is fallacious

This would almost definitely apply to double team and OHKOs as well. There is no conclusive proof that it doesn't apply, as they have not been tested. Also, you are not arguing about the magnitude of the luck, you are arguing about the magnitude of the effect, essentially how good the move's effect is (speaking of magnitude, why is that move allowed lol? very luck based...). Again, I believe that the choice in banning is arbitrary. Freezing is an incredibly game-changing effect that is only achieved through "luck," yet I've never heard of ice beam being called a suspect. There was freeze clause but I am purposely avoiding altering game mechanics such as critical hits in my arguments as I agree with the decision not to alter them.

 

[cosmicexplorer]

That all could be true and everything but it is 100% theorymon. I could have said similar things about how overpowered and/or impossible to stop rhyperior, azelf and porygon z were going be to at the beginning of DP and it turned out that only azelf ended up being OU and not because of the nasty plot set. Why is it that deoxys-a (which looks unbelievably overpowered on paper) gets a test while double team doesn't?

Because that's just the way the dice of fate rolled. Smogon PR believed that Evasion was still overpowered, and banned it because they believed that the ability to boost the chance of moves missing was too powerful. If you believe it deserves a test back in OU, you'll have to get some significant community support, which is going to be incredibly difficult to get.

I am glad that you want inconsistent banned based on its "overpoweredness" and I agree with you in that sense regarding octillery. How do we know though, if pokemon with worse typings and stats will have that same likelihood of winning if they are sent out? I played a good deal in the first suspect test and didn't encounter remoraid once, and I think most would say the same about how much they have seen the others apart from octillery.

Well, Inconsistent was banned because it had the ability to completely destroy a match if the user got a single free turn, and even if this was dampened somewhat with the lower BSTs of the NFE pokemon with it, it still had the potential to do the same as Octillery or other prominent abusers with some support. But the main reason is that Inconsistent is what was nominated, and Inconsistent itself, not the pokemon with it, was what was voted Uber in round 1. In the end, this game is defined by its players, not by the so-called "Smogon elite," and Inconsistent was what the players decided to nominate and to ban. By the same coin, if someone, say yourself, gets enough community support, and has a reasonable argument, Inconsistent Remoraid and Bidoof could be brought down into OU, while Octillery, Glalie, and Bibarel are banned, or any other sort of ban scheme. The point is that the players decided that x pokemon or y move or z ability is overpowered, so it was banned.

Your argument, that such bans for "pure luck" are preposterous, is missing the point; the bans aren't based on principle, they're based on the belief that the aspect of the metagame is overpowered, and thus are subject to the beliefs of the community, as are all bans. The main idea is that those "luck-based" strategies are banned, while Machamp's DynamicPunch is not, because the community at large doesn't believe it's broken, as is evident in the responses to your posts.

 

[JSND]

Unlike evasion etc freezing, para, sleep, and confusion isnt a full luck effect. Not every people that used para and sleep use it for luck based reason. They use para to ruin fast pokemon to handle them. Sleep only have 3 turn MAX so it dont matter much and you can switch from confusion.

Also lol about Machamp is BULKY
ST CB Bullet from CB zor to Leadchamp
50.8% - 59.6%
ST CB Bullet from CBzor to THE FRAGILE non investment Doryuuzu if it critical hit(so its neutral)
67.8% - 80%
on full HP dory (unused but yeah)
22.9% - 26.9%
45.6% - 53.8%

Wow hes not that much bulkier than the so called paper wet dory.
hes paper weight too.

 

[masterful]

This would almost definitely apply to double team and OHKOs as well. There is no conclusive proof that it doesn't apply, as they have not been tested. Also, you are not arguing about the magnitude of the luck, you are arguing about the magnitude of the effect, essentially how good the move's effect is (speaking of magnitude, why is that move allowed lol? very luck based...). Again, I believe that the choice in banning is arbitrary. Freezing is an incredibly game-changing effect that is only achieved through "luck," yet I've never heard of ice beam being called a suspect. There was freeze clause but I am purposely avoiding altering game mechanics such as critical hits in my arguments as I agree with the decision not to alter them.

OHKO moves have at minimum a 30% chance to take out at least 1/6 of a team through no skill nor prediction., That is an unnecessary amount of luck. Wait, so you advocate banning BRIGHTPOWDER, which creates a 10% chance of 1 miss, but want to keep ICE BEAM, which has a 10% chance of crippling an opponents immensely the same way it is? You are losing credibility by the minute. Please explain why you're "point of view" varies so wildly on two incredibly similar points.

 

[NC]

@cosmic explorer: You are 100% right. I am just saying that I believe the majority is being inconsistent and using double standards regarding what to ban. This is not unprecedented - there was a large majority that voted to alter game mechanics. While the majority believes that OHKOS and evasion are overpowered, this does not prove that they actually are unless they were given a test - which they were not.

@JSND- Intent does not change how much luck is involved.

@masterful- First of all, OHKOs do require lots of prediction. What if the opponent has a pokemon with sturdy? What if you are using mind reader and need to decide whether they are going to switch the next turn? What if they use substitute? What if you have a different, more optimal move you could be using? There is all that to keep in mind along with the fact that you are more likely-than-not going (70%) to accomplish nothing on your turn. Free turns are very dangerous.
Also, I do not want either of those two things banned, sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to point out an inconsistency. The only thing mentioned throughout all this that I agree with banning (at least considering what has actually been tested) is octillery.

edit: from these two topics, there are a good number of people in policy review who agree(d) with me about evasion.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81487
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81104

 

[masterful]

@cosmic explorer: You are 100% right. I am just saying that I believe the majority is being inconsistent and using double standards regarding what to ban. This is not unprecedented - there was a large majority that voted to alter game mechanics. While the majority believes that OHKOS and evasion are overpowered, that does not prove that they actually are unless they were given a test - which they were not.

@JSND- Intent does not change how much luck is involved.

@masterful- First of all, OHKOs do require lots of prediction. What if the opponent has a pokemon with sturdy? What if you are using mind reader and need to decide whether they are going to switch the next turn? What if they use substitute? What if you have a different, more optimal move you could be using? There is all that to keep in mind along with the fact that you are more likely-than-not going (70%) to accomplish nothing on your turn. Free turns are very dangerous.
Also, I do not want either of those two things banned, sorry if I was unclear. I was trying to point out an inconsistency. The only thing mentioned throughout all this that I agree with banning (at least considering what has actually been tested) is octillery.

Are you legitimately saying using OHKO moves requires skill? 30% chance. That's all that matters. If a complete idiot can come in with a Scarfed Articuno and immediately OHKO your switch-in with the same likelihood as a Focus Blast miss, that is a huge deal. Stop wasting both of our time by saying OHKO moves are ever a legitimate strat outside of mindlessly spamming them and getting lucky

 

[NC]

@masterful- First of all, OHKOs do require lots of prediction. What if the opponent has a pokemon with sturdy? What if you are using mind reader and need to decide whether they are going to switch the next turn? What if they use substitute? What if you have a different, more optimal move you could be using? There is all that to keep in mind along with the fact that you are more likely-than-not going (70%) to accomplish nothing on your turn. Free turns are very dangerous.

Everything mentioned here involves skill and prediction.

 

[JSND]

believe me NC. At first i also say only octi is broken. But on further experiment, incos is actualy isnt broken. But it just make a whole game into a whole coinflip unless you use some gimmicky pokemon to use some move thats is sometime stupid and gimmicky to beat it consistently. Yeah ocyi have water mono type but the other is weak to fighting.
The big point is, incos is like flip a coin, if head 6 time you win.
Unlike para, sleep and confuse, the banning of incos is logical.
If we ban all those three, the game is severely ruined since we are banning something that isnt so luck based compared to incos and the move we need to ban with those banned is too much.
Also no we cant just make para stop from working. We cant ban sleep move because its NOT broken(only 3 turn is not relevant). We cant make ice beam freeze never happen since its a part of the game we are simulating. We dont"make" the game and we play the game that is made by simulating it.
OHKO move is a whole big deal. Use the big pcture. Only 2 sturdy mon is used much and you dont want to use them everyday just to face OHKOers. Not to mention all sturdy mon cant stop or negate some OHKO move method. In a whole 30 % chance to OHKO is just too luck based to be allowed.

 

[KurashiDragon]

OHKO moves have at minimum a 30% chance to take out at least 1/6 of a team through no skill nor prediction., That is an unnecessary amount of luck. Wait, so you advocate banning BRIGHTPOWDER, which creates a 10% chance of 1 miss, but want to keep ICE BEAM, which has a 10% chance of crippling an opponents immensely the same way it is? You are losing credibility by the minute. Please explain why you're "point of view" varies so wildly on two incredibly similar points.

That's not a good game to play masterful but I'll play it.

Why don't we ban Ice Beam because it has a 10% chance of freeezing? Yep that's a very good counter arguement. Why don't we ban Thunderbolt because it has a 10% chance of Paralysis? Why don't we ban Flamethrower because it has a 10% chance of burn? Why don't we ban every single move in the game that has even the slightest chance of the hax gods interfering and you potentially losing the game? It's overly complicated which leads to a bad metagame.

Banning OHKO moves is not complictated. While it is true that all these moves have a chance of something bad happening OHKO moves do just that. They kill off 1/6 of your opponents pokes no questions asked. You could make it even simpler by using mind reader or lock on to make it 100% acc. It's not worth it.

I could take the time to explain inconsistent, evasion and everything else in this current discussion but that post is pretty much the only thing that bugged me and I don't have the patience to make that long a post that potentially wont even be looked at so I'll leave it at that.

 

[cosmicexplorer]

@cosmic explorer: You are 100% right. I am just saying that I believe the majority is being inconsistent and using double standards regarding what to ban. This is not unprecedented - there was a large majority that voted to alter game mechanics. While the majority believes that OHKOS and evasion are overpowered, this does not prove that they actually are unless they were given a test - which they were not.

What I was trying to say is that doing just that will be quite difficult; these tactics, besides being widely considered "cheap," have such a huge payoff if the user is lucky that convincing anyone that these should even be tested will be quite difficult.

KurashiDragon, you completely missed the point of masterful's example. He was pointing out a perceived inconsistency in NC's views, in that Ice Beam had the same chance to completely immobilize an opposing pokemon as Brightpowder has to make a move miss. The idea is that Ice Beam has a much higher payoff than Brightpowder does, with the same percentage of activation. That can't in any way be extended into "banning all forms of hax."

 

[NC]

believe me NC. At first i also say only octi is broken. But on further experiment, incos is actualy isnt broken. But it just make a whole game into a whole coinflip unless you use some gimmicky pokemon to use some move thats is sometime stupid and gimmicky to beat it consistently. Yeah ocyi have water mono type but the other is weak to fighting.
The big point is, incos is like flip a coin, if head 6 time you win.

I realize this position is widely held, but it completely contradicts the position of masterful and cosmicexplorer.

Unlike para, sleep and confuse, the banning of incos is logical.
If we ban all those three, the game is severely ruined since we are banning something that isnt so luck based compared to incos and the move we need to ban with those banned is too much.
Also no we cant just make para stop from working. We cant ban sleep move because its NOT broken(only 3 turn is not relevant). We cant make ice beam freeze never happen since its a part of the game we are simulating. We dont"make" the game and we play the game that is made by simulating it.
OHKO move is a whole big deal. Use the big pcture. Only 2 sturdy mon is used much and you dont want to use them everyday just to face OHKOers. Not to mention all sturdy mon cant stop or negate some OHKO move method. In a whole 30 % chance to OHKO is just too luck based to be allowed.

Freeze is just as luck based as OHKOs with a very similar effect except it is a 10 or 20% chance instead of 30. "Any unskilled player could click ice beam and 100% disable 1/6 of the opponents team, barring defrosting which isn't reliable."

What I was trying to say is that doing just that will be quite difficult; these tactics, besides being widely considered "cheap," have such a huge payoff if the user is lucky that convincing anyone that these should even be tested will be quite difficult.

Yes, as is being shown right now :). It doesn't necessarily make me wrong though.

 

[JSND]

lol im the one that make counter argument by saying ban outrage(confusion), T bolt(para) Ice beam(freeze) etc no offend
Also sturdy poke dont stop OHKO move as a whole. Just watch when you skarmory get OHKOed by OHKO move. it would be hilarious(actualy happen 5 time).

Also freeze is broken by any fire move easier(assuming the frozen has fire move) and isnt that much a matter. Freeze is like sleep but dont have limit. Unlike OHKO freeze mean that poke is still living so i can actuialy abuse their merit. not to mention freeze has max of 10% chance. DT always suceed and increase chance of lucky strike(unless you are using Double team chansey on my zekrom then you are killing yourself^^). OHKO has 30 % chance but it INSTANTLY OHKO ANYTHING even SKARMORY IN WORST CASE. Most people saying freeze is unhandleable but in more practice, freeze hax and para hax isnt that much of a problem unlike OHKO and evasion.
Sure they make you unable to move. But in bright side, you can use it as meatwall, and para dont happen that often to be considered for banning. Also it dont insta kill them making it not as absurd since you ca use the poke later in the match most of the time. When OHKO insta kill, you basicaly lose them in a whole.

 

[TacoBot]

OHKO moves are kind of distasteful. Also, I can think of a few ways they can be abused.

Consider a mixed LO Nidoking with Sucker Punch/Horn Drill/Fire Blast/Earth Power. Nidoking can and will consistently lure out your Sturdy Pokemon or your Ghost Pokemon and proceed to slaughter them with the correct coverage move. If you dare to stay in, Nidoking has a 30% chance of taking that Pokemon out of the match. If it misses, Nidoking can very easily switch out if you choose not to damage it. (Let's face it, no decent player will switch Nidoking or any Pokemon into something it has no chance against)

Also, free switches can be abused hard. Come in on something you force out and spam OHKO move. If a Sturdy Pokemon turns up, switch out and try again later or outright destroy it with one of your moves (HP Fire on Suicune just for Skarm/Forry). If not, you have a 30% chance of beating your counter on the switch in. That's ridiculous if you ask me. This means that Pokemon with OHKO moves are uncounterable (with the exception of those who would already be countered by Sturdy mons) because there's always this 30% chance your counter will get OHKO'd on the switch in, and not only that, if the attacker fails, he can switch out and repeat.

All in all it feels detrimental to the metagame, I wouldn't support unbanning it.

 

[KurashiDragon]

@ Cosmicexplorer

Of this you would be wrong. I only didn't respond like that because I didn't particularly care about the argument at hand. I'm not apart of it. I was simply responding to the counter argument and it's flaws.

 

[NC]

OHKO moves are kind of distasteful. Also, I can think of a few ways they can be abused.

Consider a mixed LO Nidoking with Sucker Punch/Horn Drill/Fire Blast/Earth Power. Nidoking can and will consistently lure out your Sturdy Pokemon or your Ghost Pokemon and proceed to slaughter them with the correct coverage move. If you dare to stay in, Nidoking has a 30% chance of taking that Pokemon out of the match. If it misses, Nidoking can very easily switch out if you choose not to damage it. (Let's face it, no decent player will switch Nidoking or any Pokemon into something it has no chance against)

I realize this is just an example and not your main point, but there are also some large negatives to using this. First off, you lose the moveslot that could have been used for thunderbolt or ice beam. If gyarados or salamence comes in, would you rather have horn drill or the coverage move? Secondly, with something like nidoking (and pretty much all non-water/ice OHKO users) regardless of what you say, that wasted turn (assuming horn drill misses) can be very fatal, considering how frail it is.

Also, free switches can be abused hard. Come in on something you force out and spam OHKO move. If a Sturdy Pokemon turns up, switch out and try again later or outright destroy it with one of your moves (HP Fire on Suicune just for Skarm/Forry). If not, you have a 30% chance of beating your counter on the switch in. That's ridiculous if you ask me. This means that Pokemon with OHKO moves are uncounterable (with the exception of those who would already be countered by Sturdy mons) because there's always this 30% chance your counter will get OHKO'd on the switch in, and not only that, if the attacker fails, he can switch out and repeat.

All in all it feels detrimental to the metagame, I wouldn't support unbanning it.

That's a completely understandable position to have. It could be proven (and not just theorized) to be too much if it was actually tested.

 

[cosmicexplorer]

All in all it feels detrimental to the metagame, I wouldn't support unbanning it.

I'm also against unbanning OHKO moves, but that particular logic is completely based on theorymon. Also remember, testing=/=unbanning. Although I still don't believe that OHKO moves should even be tested, because the chance they have for any pokemon to take out anything, should not, in my opinion, be allowed, NC does make a point here that banning it is not largely based on experience with using it.

KurashiDragon, that's precisely the point. There was no flaw in that particular argument; for Brightpowder, Ice Beam is a perfectly valid counterexample.

 

[Lemonade]

So a factor that seems to have not been addresses which is rather important is if OhKO moves were unbanned WOULD PEOPLE USE THEM. I'm speaking from experience here, so it's not the theorymon all you comment about: I've played many ladder matches where there was no OHkO or evasion clause (like a couple). Guess what? None of the players used double team or sheer cold etc. This wasn't smogon, granted, but can competitive pokemon players differ that much? All this discussion is pointless until you establish the fact that if OHkO was unbanned the majority of people would start using OHKo moves. Mind, I've only read the past 5 pages so you all may have addressed this. What you all are dong right now is trying to prove a theorem without first proving the most vital part of it. At least this is how I view the issue.

 

[IcyMan28]

People may initially rush to use them at first, then find inconsistent results and stop using them once they realize that they generally aren't worth it in the first place.