np: OU Suspect Testing Round 3 - So Long and Thanks for all the Fish

[Thorhammer]

Hey man, just because something wasn't banned doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Ever heard of Salamence or Latias?

When circumstances change, there can be a new cause to ban something.

In the case of Salamence, the circumstance that changed was the banning of Latias. On the other hand, in the case of Latias, no circumstances changed, and it should never have been banned.

It's a waste of effort considering how much it did. It you do a ratio of even the slight effort of writing one more line of code to get it banned on how much it achieved, it is still huge (Small number/A very small number still is a large number). It's like Singapore's ban on chewing gum in the streets. While it really isn't a big deal and doesn't spend much effort to enforce, at the end of the day it is something completely trivial. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

It is an official decision, but it shows how nitpicky and ban-happy this place has "officially" become. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Why don't we ban stuff like Fire Stone or useless items? They're uncompetitive because they're useless. If it's uncompetitive, do we ban it? If we left Brightpowder/Lax Incense in, was it making the game any less playable than it is now? Not by any measurable amount. I guarantee you people would still complain about hax when we remove it. Again, it was a seriously pointless that achieved virtually nothing. Why waste the effort to achieve nothing? What's even more baffling is why we're not banning Sand Veil/Snow Cloak first. The logic of this place is absolutely astounding.

Ratios aren't important here. It took virtually no effort, and therefore it cannot be considered a waste of much effort, if any.

Being useless doesn't make something uncompetitive. Brightpowder and Lax Incense were banned because, while on average they aren't useful, they have the potential to allow an unfair victory for the player using them, which may be different from any fair victory the player might get from any more consistent item.

As for Sand Veil and Snow Cloak, they weren't banned because a blanket ban on the abilities would result in the banning of Pokemon such as Garchomp, which are not inherently uncompetitive. I proposed an alternative method of using a combination ban to prevent the abilities from actually taking effect in any battles that are likely to happen. The real problem here is that my proposed alternative was ignored, despite being a near-flawless solution.

 

[TLK]

When circumstances change, there can be a new cause to ban something.

In the case of Salamence, the circumstance that changed was the banning of Latias. On the other hand, in the case of Latias, no circumstances changed, and it should never have been banned.

This is rubbish. Circumstances change all the time. It wasn't until people started really abusing Specs Latias that people realised it was stupidly overpowered for the 4th gen metagame.

Let's take Inconsistent for example. People used to think it sucked as an ability, then one set, or one common set happened and people realised that it was broken as hell. Imagine nobody worked out how to abuse that set until after all the suspect testing had finished. Would it not still be broken? Of course it would, and circumstances can easily change outside of suspect testing.

In the case of Latios today, nothing has changed, I admit, but it was broken at least from the 2nd round of testing, IMO and still is today.

 

[Arc Tech]

This is rubbish. Circumstances change all the time. It wasn't until people started really abusing Specs Latias that people realised it was stupidly overpowered for the 4th gen metagame.

Let's take Inconsistent for example. People used to think it sucked as an ability, then one set, or one common set happened and people realised that it was broken as hell. Imagine nobody worked out how to abuse that set until after all the suspect testing had finished. Would it not still be broken? Of course it would, and circumstances can easily change outside of suspect testing.

In the case of Latios today, nothing has changed, I admit, but it was broken at least from the 2nd round of testing, IMO and still is today.

I disagree, it's not rubbish and makes perfect sense. Circumstances changing can empower a pokemon to the point of brokenness, either by removing a enough of it's checks (by them getting banned) or buffing it greatly.

But what you said other than that is also true. The two points do not contradict each other, a pokemon can be ok one round and broken the next by being buffed or by simply discovering a new set/a set getting popular.

@Below: oh my bad. Although a circumstance did change in that instance- the voter pool. All the old ones weren't allowed to vote.

 

[TLK]

Oh I agree that circumstances changing can lead to other things getting broken - Salamence from Latias is a prime example. I simply disagreed with the statement that if circumstances don't change (i.e. a Pokemon being banned) then the Pokemon can't suddenly become broken, because new sets can emerge at any time which could be found broken.

 

[yee]

It is an official decision, but it shows how nitpicky and ban-happy this place has "officially" become. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Why don't we ban stuff like Fire Stone or useless items? They're uncompetitive because they're useless. If it's uncompetitive, do we ban it? If we left Brightpowder/Lax Incense in, was it making the game any less playable than it is now? Not by any measurable amount. I guarantee you people would still complain about hax when we remove it. Again, it was a seriously pointless that achieved virtually nothing. Why waste the effort to achieve nothing? What's even more baffling is why we're not banning Sand Veil/Snow Cloak first. The logic of this place is absolutely astounding.

The only reason we haven't banned Sand Veil/Snow Cloak is because of all the "soft bans" it creates on certain pokemon like Cacturne and Mamoswine.

Edit- Ninja'd by a long shot.

 

[shrang]

Being useless doesn't make something uncompetitive. Brightpowder and Lax Incense were banned because, while on average they aren't useful, they have the potential to allow an unfair victory for the player using them, which may be different from any fair victory the player might get from any more consistent item.

You can get an unfair victory from untimely crits, Stone Edge misses, whatever. While I know you can't do anything about them, the point is simple. Luck is an intrinsic part of the game. Grow some balls and just deal with it.

 

[Arc Tech]

You can get an unfair victory from untimely crits, Stone Edge misses, whatever. While I know you can't do anything about them, the point is simple. Luck is an intrinsic part of the game. Grow some balls and just deal with it.

Then why don't we unban double team? Especially considering that it statistically gives a lower net gain in turns than sand veil and snow cloak thanks to the fact you have to use a turn setting up.

To have DT/Minimize banned but not Sand Veil/Snow cloak is a double standard thanks to that fact. Even if you set up to +6, you still use up enough turns that by the time you even out in net gain, you probably could've swept them twice.

 

[XienZo]

Well, keep in mind that Minimize is now a +2 Evasion.

However, in 5th gen, the initial movement to keep DT/Minimize banned wasn't all that strong; IIRC, it only passed in Policy by a margin of 1-2 votes, so even during that time, it wasn't a sure-fire policy.

Edit: In fact, the vote technically FAILED a 2/3rds supermajority necessary; it only passed because for some reason, they used a 66.00% cutoff instead of a 66.67% (the vote was 66.43%).

 

[Thorhammer]

This is rubbish. Circumstances change all the time. It wasn't until people started really abusing Specs Latias that people realised it was stupidly overpowered for the 4th gen metagame.

Let's take Inconsistent for example. People used to think it sucked as an ability, then one set, or one common set happened and people realised that it was broken as hell. Imagine nobody worked out how to abuse that set until after all the suspect testing had finished. Would it not still be broken? Of course it would, and circumstances can easily change outside of suspect testing.

In the case of Latios today, nothing has changed, I admit, but it was broken at least from the 2nd round of testing, IMO and still is today.

I suppose you have a point about Latias.

However, there has also been no evidence that Latios, Reuniclus, or Excadrill is being used any differently than they were in previous rounds, either, so in this case, the point stands.

You can get an unfair victory from untimely crits, Stone Edge misses, whatever. While I know you can't do anything about them, the point is simple. Luck is an intrinsic part of the game. Grow some balls and just deal with it.

Necessary luck, such as crits and attacks with imperfect accuracy, are an intrinsic part of the game, and we shouldn't complain about them.

Unnecessary luck, however, is not. While we can have a fine metagame with some unnecessary luck, when we can improve the metagame by getting rid of that luck at no real cost, we should do so.

 

[Darusare]

You can get an unfair victory from untimely crits, Stone Edge misses, whatever. While I know you can't do anything about them, the point is simple. Luck is an intrinsic part of the game. Grow some balls and just deal with it.

exactly correct
i dont understand why people have such a problem with luck now
brightpowder was fine last gen and there are no new abusers this gen
someone could say its Garchomps fault
but he got banned for Yache SD NOT brightpowder SD

 

[shrang]

Then why don't we unban double team? Especially considering that it statistically gives a lower net gain in turns than sand veil and snow cloak thanks to the fact you have to use a turn setting up.

To have DT/Minimize banned but not Sand Veil/Snow cloak is a double standard thanks to that fact. Even if you set up to +6, you still use up enough turns that by the time you even out in net gain, you probably could've swept them twice.

The difference is that Brightpowder gives you 10% evasion, and can't be stacked. That is no less than a Draco Meteor miss. Don't give me the Sand Veil + Brightpowder either, because we're talking about Brightpowder. DT gives you 33% in one turn, 50% the next and so on.

 

[masterful]

Then why don't we unban double team? Especially considering that it statistically gives a lower net gain in turns than sand veil and snow cloak thanks to the fact you have to use a turn setting up.

To have DT/Minimize banned but not Sand Veil/Snow cloak is a double standard thanks to that fact. Even if you set up to +6, you still use up enough turns that by the time you even out in net gain, you probably could've swept them twice.

Double Team and Minimize stack, making a game very easy to win after one boost. The boosts allow you to accumulate more boosts, and at +6, you are virtually unhittable. Those kinds of moves are broken, and thus were banned. Do you legitimately believe a 10% chance of missing is broken? If you don't believe it is broken then it shouldn't be banned. Otherwise, what's the point of being a competitive POKEMON community if we reserve the right to ban whatever we don't like about the game.

 

[Thorhammer]

The difference is that Brightpowder gives you 10% evasion, and can't be stacked. That is no less than a Draco Meteor miss. Don't give me the Sand Veil + Brightpowder either, because we're talking about Brightpowder. DT gives you 33% in one turn, 50% the next and so on.

Accuracy is not the same as Evasion. Using one of the countless 100% accuracy moves stops accuracy from being a problem; it can't stop Evasion from being a problem.

Those boosts are for a 2/2 stats. Accuracy and Evasion are 3/3 stats. +1 gives 25% Evasion; +2 gives +40% Evasion.

Double Team and Minimize stack, making a game very easy to win after one boost. The boosts allow you to accumulate more boosts, and at +6, you are virtually unhittable. Those kinds of moves are broken, and thus were banned. Do you legitimately believe a 10% chance of missing is broken? If you don't believe it is broken then it shouldn't be banned. Otherwise, what's the point of being a competitive POKEMON community if we reserve the right to ban whatever we don't like about the game.

On average, that isn't effective enough to be broken, especially with Double Team.

Again, the voters have spoken, by far more than a supermajority, in saying that brokenness is not necessary for a ban when the thing in question is uncompetitive.

 

[Arc Tech]

Jesus Christ do you people read?

I specifically said that using DT/Minimize more than once (getting up to +6) yields a lower net gain in turns except for very long matches- which is unlikely, since if you get a few free turns from evasion, you should be setting up with another move and then sweeping them. It is statistically BAD to use DT more than once. Petrie did the math in the old evasion thread.

Sand Veil/Snow Cloak: you get 2 free turns per every ten.
+6 Evasion: 6.7 free turns per every ten, minus the 6 turns you take to set it up with DT.

They +6 evasion doesn't overtake the abilities until 13 turns (the items take 7 turns, just thought I'd put that in). If your opponent is using an phazing move, you have to restart every time they hit using DT, while you don't lose it using the abilities. You also don't have +6 evasion on switching in and have to use turns setting up, so instead it's more like 19 turns than 13.

And by the time +6 evasion yields any significant net gain over the abilities, you should have had enough free turns to set up some boosts and sweep them with either option (remember, you need those 6 free turns to set up evasion, while you're setting up from the start with your free turns with the abilties).

 

[masterful]

On average, that isn't effective enough to be broken, especially with Double Team.

Again, the voters have spoken, by far more than a supermajority, in saying that brokenness is not necessary for a ban when the thing in question is uncompetitive.

I don't understand why you continue to bring up the voters thing. I am well aware they voted to ban it, and I am clearly disputing that the fact that they should have. If a player is willing to use moves that are less than 100% accuracy, they should be willing to allow Brightpowder. If a player is willing to deal with Thundurus, who can stop you from moving 25% of the time permanently, with just one turn, they should be willing to deal with a 10% chance of missing. The only reason the voters voted out Brightpowder was because they didn'tt like it. Not because it was broken (which it isn't. LO or lefties is far superior in almost all situations), but because THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. If we wish to call ourselves a competitive POKEMON community, we have to accpet the game, and not ban everything about it that we don't like. If smogon wants a metagame free from any hax, they should create a new game, not play pokemon, but I don't believe that is what the community wants.

 

[khz]

I don't understand why you continue to bring up the voters thing. I am well aware they voted to ban it, and I am clearly disputing that the fact that they should have. If a player is willing to use moves that are less than 100% accuracy, they should be willing to allow Brightpowder. If a player is willing to deal with Thundurus, who can stop you from moving 25% of the time permanently, with just one turn, they should be willing to deal with a 10% chance of missing. The only reason the voters voted out Brightpowder was because they didn'tt like it. Not because it was broken (which it isn't. LO or lefties is far superior in almost all situations), but because THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. If we wish to call ourselves a competitive POKEMON community, we have to accpet the game, and not ban everything about it that we don't like. If smogon wants a metagame free from any hax, they should create a new game, not play pokemon, but I don't believe that is what the community wants.

All bans are subjective to a certain extent. If subjectiveness played no part in our tiers, then anything could be labelled as "broken" or "not broken". That doesn't happen. More or less everyone has accepted that banning all comes down to personal preferences anyway, and even if it doesn't then what stops someone from qualifying to vote and voting solely because they "don't like something?"

 

[Thorhammer]

I don't understand why you continue to bring up the voters thing. I am well aware they voted to ban it, and I am clearly disputing that the fact that they should have. If a player is willing to use moves that are less than 100% accuracy, they should be willing to allow Brightpowder. If a player is willing to deal with Thundurus, who can stop you from moving 25% of the time permanently, with just one turn, they should be willing to deal with a 10% chance of missing. The only reason the voters voted out Brightpowder was because they didn'tt like it. Not because it was broken (which it isn't. LO or lefties is far superior in almost all situations), but because THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. If we wish to call ourselves a competitive POKEMON community, we have to accpet the game, and not ban everything about it that we don't like. If smogon wants a metagame free from any hax, they should create a new game, not play pokemon, but I don't believe that is what the community wants.

I'm bring up their votes not to directly address the matter of the ban, but to address the basis behind it. You oppose the ban on the basis that the right thing to do is to ban only what is broken, but that was just voted by an overwhelming majority to be false; rather, uncompetitive things can be banned even if they are not broken. You claim that what Smogon wants is a metagame with only broken things banned, but that vote shows that that is not the case.

 

[PttP]

i like abusing brightpowder and i voted to ban it

G_G

 

[shrang]

Accuracy is not the same as Evasion. Using one of the countless 100% accuracy moves stops accuracy from being a problem; it can't stop Evasion from being a problem.

How is it different? You still can lose to an "unfair" crit or something like that. Again, luck is inbedded in the game. Learn to deal with it and man up.

 

[masterful]

I'm bring up their votes not to directly address the matter of the ban, but to address the basis behind it. You oppose the ban on the basis that the right thing to do is to ban only what is broken, but that was just voted by an overwhelming majority to be false; rather, uncompetitive things can be banned even if they are not broken. You claim that what Smogon wants is a metagame with only broken things banned, but that vote shows that that is not the case.

The vote does not compose the majority of the smogon community, and it goes against the philosophy of the suspect test, which is to ban broken aspects of the game. That's the point I am making.

 

[IcyMan28]

I generally agree with Shrang on this, but the ban is so insignificant that I don't really care enough to cry out about it.

I would be far more concerned if Latios or Excadrill left just because some people don't like dealing with them.

 

[XienZo]

The vote does not compose the majority of the smogon community, and it goes against the philosophy of the suspect test, which is to ban broken aspects of the game. That's the point I am making.

Meh, the community isn't complaining much though. Philosophy is nice and all, but if no one has a problem, we're all good. And IIRC, the point of all these tests is, ultimately, to get a metagame we like, ideal or not.

 

[masterful]

Meh, the community isn't complaining much though. Philosophy is nice and all, but if no one has a problem, we're all good. And IIRC, the point of all these tests is, ultimately, to get a metagame we like, ideal or not.

The point is to get a BALANCED metagame. If we could ban whatever we didn't like, it wouldn't be a pokemon community. I don't care about the ban. I never planned on using either of the items. I care about the precedent that has been set. That bans can be made off of dislike.

 

[Sprocket]

Then what would you define smogon now? By your very argument, we ARE banning what we don't like.

Apparently not, considering that auto-sun and auto-rain didn't even garner a 50% majority to ban.

If any Pokemon besides Deoxys gets banned, it's going to make me question the whole suspect testing process.

 

[shrang]

I generally agree with Shrang on this, but the ban is so insignificant that I don't really care enough to cry out about it.

While the result really isn't much at all, the problem I have it is just that. WHY are we bothering to ban something that does virtually nothing? While you can attack me on the Fire Stone analogy, it is basically the same thing. We've banned something that ultimately does basically nothing to the metagame. What is the point?

Again, if it's not broken, don't fix it.