np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

Status
Not open for further replies.
IcyMan28 said:
So because of this one experience you are, in fact, doing a complete 180 (your words not mine) on Garchomp? And I can't help but notice that you are quick to harp on the RNG when Sand Veil activates twice, but when, in the very same battle, it turns and goes your way with a 3-turn Outrage, the RNG is just fine.

On top of that, you've already outlined how you had an additional backup plan to revenge it (Infernape), which I doubt you specifically came up with while thinking about Garchomp. It's just another example of the metagame being able to contain Garchomp.

Just my two cents, though.
Click to expand...


Sure, it's an instance of random chance interfering in a match, but requiring multiple backup plans to take one Pokemon (possibly exposing one to other threats) was the reason Garchomp was banned in the 4th gen. . .Sand Veil problems are at least a legitimate point about Garchomp

Of course, I use Garchomp (on a non-weather team), so I'm one of the least likely ones to advocate its ban. Even if it is broken, I dislike complex bans because it just feels like holding back a strategy (Grandfather clause means I don't feel the same way about other clauses).

Too many things outspeed Garchomp now, since 102 Speed isn't as fast as it used to be. While still powerful, it's only a moderately fast Pokemon now, and a Scarf makes it predictable Steel-type bait, especially if it uses Protect, my personal hate for the restrictions of Choice items aside.

EDIT: For the record, I face Sand teams very rarely on Wifi for some reason. Even though many people on there use hacks, it's surprisingly rare you find a weather team at all there. . .
 
adman2 said:
Sure, it's an instance of random chance interfering in a match, but requiring multiple backup plans to take one Pokemon (possibly exposing one to other threats) was the reason Garchomp was banned in the 4th gen. . .Sand Veil problems are at least a legitimate point about Garchomp

Of course, I use Garchomp (on a non-weather team), so I'm one of the least likely ones to advocate its ban. Even if it is broken, I dislike complex bans because it just feels like holding back a strategy (Grandfather clause means I don't feel the same way about other clauses).

Too many things outspeed Garchomp now, since 102 Speed isn't as fast as it used to be. While still powerful, it's only a moderately fast Pokemon now, and a Scarf makes it predictable Steel-type bait, especially if it uses Protect, my personal hate for the restrictions of Choice items aside.
Click to expand...

There were 3 reasons for Garchomp's banning last gen - outstanding power (and by outstanding I mean relative to the rest of the meta), considerable bulk, and an excellent speed tier. We can all agree that Chomp's power is on par this generation, so relatively speaking it does not break the metagame any more than Terrakion or Excadrill. It still has that bulk, but with the power creep that has already been established, that means less this time around than it did last time. The same can be said of its speed, which is not as key as it once was anymore.

The fact is, Garchomp is often "multichecked" as a side effect of the metagame's most common pokemon. Sand will see Excadrill and Latios outrunning it. Starmie and the genie twins outpace it in Rain while Sun still has Chlorophyll to use. Even nonweather teams pack the means necessary to deal with it simply by using the aforementioned pokemon to outspeed and check it, or by using the dedicated walls that can take it on (Hippowdon, Skarmory, Gliscor, etc).

Sand Veil may make or break a few games, but the amount it does so is significantly less than those that it doesn't. Why do you think the word "uncompetitive" has to be thrown around when discussing it? Because there aren't any solid arguments against it otherwise.
 
IcyMan28 said:
Sand Veil may make or break a few games, but the amount it does so is significantly less than those that it doesn't. Why do you think the word "uncompetitive" has to be thrown around when discussing it? Because there aren't any solid arguments against it otherwise.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. "LOL uncompetitive bcoz luck" is not a good reason to try to get sand veil + sand stream banned. Pretty much every attacking move will hit chomp with sand veil up more often than not, the chance of ice beam missing is (correct me if I'm wrong) less than paralysis activating. Your attacks still hit a lot more often than not. Let me remind you people that want it banned that we play Pokemon, so there has to be some luck factor. We should not try to get rid of every last bit because you lose a few games to it.
 
I'm actually reminded of Veedrock's old sig claiming that paralysis is more broken than Evasion. The obvious fallacy is that evasion moves have the sole purpose of using luck to gain an advantage, while paralysis doesn't. This technically cannot be said about Sand Veil, even if hidden abilities were released. I know I said this a few times before, but I was just adding to what the posters above were saying.
 
capefeather said:
I'm actually reminded of Veedrock's old sig claiming that paralysis is more broken than Evasion. The obvious fallacy is that evasion moves have the sole purpose of using luck to gain an advantage, while paralysis doesn't. This technically cannot be said about Sand Veil, even if hidden abilities were released. I know I said this a few times before, but I was just adding to what the posters above were saying.
Click to expand...

Look dude, I'm on your side, but don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person commenting here that isn't stubborn enough to fight this to the end, and considering how the whole argument is completely subjective, there really isn't a point.

Right now, not advocating this ban, but at the same time not missing it if it goes is probably the best we can do without getting into yet another ridiculous argument about whether or not SV introduces too much luck.

Also, @Icyman28

Since you pretty much rebooted this whole thing, I might as well try to clarify what alphatron was trying to say:

He isn't saying he wants it banned, he just won't miss it if it goes. If anything, thats 90 degrees, not 180 (terrible pun, but it gets the point across).

If (and only if) Garchomp goes, then will you miss it? Would you be mad if SVChomp was banned, but Rough Skin Chomp wasn't?

If the answer to any of those was no, then can we please all just move onto a different topic? And if it was yes, then can you just please ignore all the people against SV, and move onto a different topic?
 
I know I have said this before, but I feel this banning for "uncompetitiveness," is heading in the totally wrong direction. The jump between double team/minimize and 1HKO moves, to signifigantly less annoying evasion items and now abilties, was too big. Now one could under the same logic, continue this anti-hax crusade to other hax items, since they are "uncompetitive." And in many of the arguements I have seen "even though many don't truly matter, they can cause an unfair luck advantage, we should avoid uneeded luck in the metagame." And unlike the poor fire blast examples, its a choice that the opponent takes, and they press the hax on you, not the other way around. Considering all that, if you continued with this sand veil and snow cloak ban, the next step is banning scope lens, quick claw, king's rock, razor fang, and razor claw. And for those who argue that those items are no where near as haxy as sand veil and snowcloak, all I have to do is point out the 95% of evasion abilty users that cause absolutely no problem. Clearly if sand veil and snow cloak are in the same ball park as double team, other hax items are also in that ball park, not that far away from then either. There needs to be a major overhaul in the way hax, made by the opposing player, is viewed, instead of lumping it all togeher and banning it.
 
Scarfwynaut said:
I know I have said this before, but I feel this banning for "uncompetitiveness," is heading in the totally wrong direction. The jump between double team/minimize and 1HKO moves, to signifigantly less annoying evasion items and now abilties, was too big. Now one could under the same logic, continue this anti-hax crusade to other hax items, since they are "uncompetitive." And in many of the arguements I have seen "even though many don't truly matter, they can cause an unfair luck advantage, we should avoid uneeded luck in the metagame." And unlike the poor fire blast examples, its a choice that the opponent takes, and they press the hax on you, not the other way around. Considering all that, if you continued with this sand veil and snow cloak ban, the next step is banning scope lens, quick claw, king's rock, razor fang, and razor claw. And for those who argue that those items are no where near as haxy as sand veil and snowcloak, all I have to do is point out the 95% of evasion abilty users that cause absolutely no problem. Clearly if sand veil and snow cloak are in the same ball park as double team, other hax items are also in that ball park, not that far away from then either. There needs to be a major overhaul in the way hax, made by the opposing player, is viewed, instead of lumping it all togeher and banning it.
Click to expand...

It's not like banning those items would actually do anything anyway, but yea I see your point.

The reason people argued this at all was because they thought that evasion boosting abilities was too much unnecessary luck. Again though, this perception of what is too much is completely subjective. So I reiterate, can we find another topic to discuss before we start playing verbal ring-a-round the rosie again?
 
I've been gone for a few days but I want to reply to SJCrew's post


SJCrew said:
No, that's just a bad argument used by anti-ban groups who don't feel something is broken and can't even come up with a proper explanation for it. Checks are just incredibly shitty arguments against brokenness to begin with because they're not even required to switch in - which is an element of strategy the game absolutely depends on.

Let me reiterate: 'Counters don't matter anymore' is a terrible argument because it completely denies an integral element of the game.

I never said that counters were stupid or unnecessary. Of course counters are useful and stall teams are built around having a core of pokemon that can counter most of the metagame.

HOWEVER, saying that a pokemon is broken "because it has no counters" is a terrible argument. What I meant by "counters don't matter anymore" is that whether or not a pokemon should be banned is NOT indicated by the number of counters it has. People have been claiming that because Latios has no counters, it should be banned. It was that kind of logic that I have problems with.
Hope I placed enough emphasis on that. If you see a Latias, what are you bringing in? Well, it's most likely a Calm Mind Latias, since Latios runs Specs better these days. Send in Ferrothorn. Oh no, it has reflect. Send in Blissey with Toxic. The rare Choice Specs? Send in Jirachi, Metagross, or Brozong.

It's not that Latias doesn't have counters and we're just not giving a fuck, because I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed by now. It's that Latias does have counters and they're all competitively viable Pokemon we're liable to use every game regardless of whether or not she exists. It's her brother that's the problem, considering he hits harder than God and can screw over a lot of his counters simply by predicting well and overpowering them. Prediction may be a two-way street, but I do recall getting hit by HP Fire a lot even if I don't brainlessly switch in my Ferrothorn.

Yeah, i accidentally started to refer to latios as latias in my previous responses. my bad

The next time you want bring out your go-to argument of 'this is 5th gen, we don't need counters anymore' then explain to me what the fuck we're trying to do in teambuilder to cover our ass against these threats, and why one or two Pokemon are allowed to not have counters when basically the entire rest of the game (not located in the Uber tier) does?

Because counters are NOT integral to the gameplay. When I make hyper-offense teams, I generally never have a single counter to any pokemon on my team. From a hyper-offense standpoint (the playstyle I prefer) then yes, the concept of counters are worthless.

But "not integral" is not the same as "not vital." Counters are still important and definitely useful, but not necessary. I've made 4th gen OU teams that couldn't switch a single pokemon into any of the top OU threats yet still almost made leaderboard.

Counters are still vital to the game. By adding counters to our team, we can better deal with the opponent and easily shift the game into our favor. Counters are just another tool to have when teambuilding. The same way I go "I need an ice sharder for dragons," other people go "I need a steel for dragons" Both strategies work and if you are going to claim that "using checks means you have to sacrifice a pokemon, which puts you at an disadvantage if they switch out of your check" then let me claim that "having a pokemon that can counter another one would slow down my team." You'll obviously think my argument is utter shit (which it is), but I have a similar view of yours. I've never bothered with counters and in my personal opinion, judging the "brokenness" of a pokemon based on the number of counters it has is complete bullshit.

We need counters because the game depends on them. Letting Pokemon die to get our check in is going to cost you more games than making sure the biggest threat to your team has a counter. It doesn't matter if you can't counter everything at once, it just matters that you can counter what's necessary.

I'm going to go into a little bit of theorymon here, but I believe that with the introduction of team preview, the idea of you must have counters has become even more obsolete. If I see that you have an unaware Quagsire on your team, then I would never start quiver dancing with my volcarona. Instead, I would spam Bug Buzz which is a 2 hit KO on physically defensive quagsire, IIRC. The point is that if I know that you have a pokemon that counters one of mine, then I am going to attempt to place my pokemon in a position where it has an advantage over its counter, this includes double switching. I know that prediction is a terrible argument and i subscribe wholeheartedly to that belief, but this fundamental shift in gameplay definitely counts for something, imo
Click to expand...

Virizion said:
Jolly lowers SpA. He meant timid and you know it.

@ the discussion in general
And why would anybody use Stone Edge on Conk anyways..? I've not seen it once, and I do battle often. It doesn't seem like a great idea to use it, but whatever. Because conk is slower than most ghosts, meaning that a supereffective payback is the same as a neutral stone edge. And since stone edge also hits flying types, it does everything payback does, especially after the nerf, and more. PP might be an issue though.
Click to expand...
 
Also, @Icyman28

Since you pretty much rebooted this whole thing, I might as well try to clarify what alphatron was trying to say:

He isn't saying he wants it banned, he just won't miss it if it goes. If anything, thats 90 degrees, not 180 (terrible pun, but it gets the point across).

If (and only if) Garchomp goes, then will you miss it? Would you be mad if SVChomp was banned, but Rough Skin Chomp wasn't?

If the answer to any of those was no, then can we please all just move onto a different topic? And if it was yes, then can you just please ignore all the people against SV, and move onto a different topic?
Click to expand...

I was replying to Alphatron's post, I don't see how this counts as a "reboot."

Regardless, here's my reasoning. Even if I didn't think Garchomp adds something positive to the metagame (I do), and lacked a preference either way, that still means that it isn't broken, in my eyes at least. If it were broken...I'd realize it and vote that way.

If those who "don't care either way" simply stand aside, we will have a select few pushing hard to get what they want without any counterbalancing force. That's because the difference between the "bans" and "no-bans" is that while the former has a goal in mind, the latter doesn't, so they won't be nearly as motivated to try and maintain the status quo.

To put it simply, if those who don't care either way simply let others have their way on each and every subject that they don't care about, that is essentially bypassing the entire suspect process, which is a loophole that is FAR too easy to exploit. It's part of the reason why I support getting rid of the "Abstain" option, but that's just me and an entirely different issue.
 
Why is freeze clause not implemented on the Standard OU ladder? I just lost because 2 of my pokes froze and I couldn't do anything about it.
 
Vladimir said:
The same thing happened to me earlier. (I hope this isn't related to the whole "following in-game mechanics" bull)
Click to expand...

It isn't something you can control, it can not be enforced in-game (only in Stadium games but "lol 5th gen") and well Paralysis is much worse than Freeze since GSC/ADV, how about you ask for a Paralysis Clause instead...
 
wait... what? Paralysis is worse than Freeze? Srsly? Freeze essentially turns your poke to fodder, and it's definately worse than being flat-out KO'd (since when KO'd you at least get a free switch-in), while having a 10% chance to thaw out each turn. That's as much chance as Flamethrower has to burn its target, to put it in perspective. Paralysis merely reduces your speed, which isn't even an issue to slow pokes, and your chances to act by 25% per cent, not much more than Sand Veil or Snow Cloak. The two status effects aren't even comparable.

Freeze is broken in any and all tiers. If i were to choose between banning Mewtwo or a move with 100% chance to freeze, i'd definately opt for the latter. Also, since Freeze Clause isn't actually being implemented on the ladder, why have it as a battle rule? "Can't be enforced in-game" is a pointless argument, since we're playing on an emulator and we can easily alter this particularly annoying luck-reliant factor, to make battles more skill-based.

A quick reminder, the person who overruled a supermajority vote to "stricktly follow in-game mechanics" is no longer leading the suspect testing proccess.
 
Vladimir said:
wait... what? Paralysis is worse than Freeze? Srsly? Freeze essentially turns your poke to fodder, and it's definately worse than being flat-out KO'd (since when KO'd you at least get a free switch-in), while having a 10% chance to thaw out each turn. That's as much chance as Flamethrower has to burn its target, to put it in perspective. P
Click to expand...
It's also as much chance as any Ice move has to freeze

& it's a 20% chance to unfreeze
 
Nubbins said:
I never said that counters were stupid or unnecessary. Of course counters are useful and stall teams are built around having a core of pokemon that can counter most of the metagame.

HOWEVER, saying that a pokemon is broken "because it has no counters" is a terrible argument. What I meant by "counters don't matter anymore" is that whether or not a pokemon should be banned is NOT indicated by the number of counters it has. People have been claiming that because Latios has no counters, it should be banned. It was that kind of logic that I have problems with.
Click to expand...

Ummm, why shouldn't that be a deciding factor? Why is it wrong to say that somethings too powerful when it out-muscles every single defensive juggernaut in the meta-game and then some? I fail to see how that logic isn't sound. Are you saying out-muscling every wall in the game isn't necessarilytoo powerful? I would certainly like to see what is "too powerful" for you then, in that case.

Counters are still vital to the game. By adding counters to our team, we can better deal with the opponent and easily shift the game into our favor. Counters are just another tool to have when teambuilding. The same way I go "I need an ice sharder for dragons," other people go "I need a steel for dragons" Both strategies work and if you are going to claim that "using checks means you have to sacrifice a pokemon, which puts you at an disadvantage if they switch out of your check" then let me claim that "having a pokemon that can counter another one would slow down my team." You'll obviously think my argument is utter shit (which it is), but I have a similar view of yours. I've never bothered with counters and in my personal opinion, judging the "brokenness" of a pokemon based on the number of counters it has is complete bullshit.
Click to expand...
The problem of having no counters is that with that decision between "quicker pace for my team," or "more disruption of their team" is made utterly moot when it comes to that Pokemon. There is no safe way to disrupt it... you can mess with it and harass it, but you can't stop it unless your Opponent let's you outplay him. That's a significant problem, no matter what you say. It forces you into a disadvantageous situation with your opponent, which means if you play someone who has equal skill to you, you'll lose significantly more often then not because of the advantage he has over you by using a Pokemon with no counters, and no solid way for you to stop it. An advantage that remains such in that sense, is most definitely broken, and that's why it's a problem. It has nothing to do with the actual practical use of these counters, but it's rather a gauge of their meta-game strength.
 
Vladimir said:
wait... what? Paralysis is worse than Freeze? Srsly? Freeze essentially turns your poke to fodder, and it's definately worse than being flat-out KO'd (since when KO'd you at least get a free switch-in), while having a 10% chance to thaw out each turn. That's as much chance as Flamethrower has to burn its target, to put it in perspective. Paralysis merely reduces your speed, which isn't even an issue to slow pokes, and your chances to act by 25% per cent, not much more than Sand Veil or Snow Cloak. The two status effects aren't even comparable.

Freeze is broken in any and all tiers. If i were to choose between banning Mewtwo or a move with 100% chance to freeze, i'd definately opt for the latter. Also, since Freeze Clause isn't actually being implemented on the ladder, why have it as a battle rule? "Can't be enforced in-game" is a pointless argument, since we're playing on an emulator and we can easily alter this particularly annoying luck-reliant factor, to make battles more skill-based.

A quick reminder, the person who overruled a supermajority vote to "stricktly follow in-game mechanics" is no longer leading the suspect testing proccess.
Click to expand...

Did you even read this post before submitting it? Your hypothetical scenario is pointless because it doesn't exist. The fact that we are playing an emulator (not everyone does this; some people play wifi and you really can't do shit about freeze there anyway) doesn't mean that we can alter game mechanics as we please, otherwise we aren't emulating, we are creating.

You cite the change of unfreezing (which is actually 20%) to be equal to the chances of flamethrower's burn. Getting frozen in the first place is equally as unlikely. In fact, you have twice the chance of defrosting as you do getting frozen in the first place. Furthermore, anyone who is relying on the chance of freeze will fail miserably. "Lol using ice moves is luck-based because of freeze" is the stupidest argument I've seen as of yet, which is saying something given the recent Giratina-A discussion.

Next we will be getting rid of critical hits, allowing illegal breeding combination, and suddenly allowing 252 EVs in every stat because "we are playing a simulator."

Quit your bitching about hax and just play the game you were given.
 
IcyMan28 said:
Did you even read this post before submitting it? Your hypothetical scenario is pointless because it doesn't exist. The fact that we are playing an emulator (not everyone does this; some people play wifi and you really can't do shit about freeze there anyway) doesn't mean that we can alter game mechanics as we please, otherwise we aren't emulating, we are creating.

You cite the change of unfreezing (which is actually 20%) to be equal to the chances of flamethrower's burn. Getting frozen in the first place is equally as unlikely. In fact, you have twice the chance of defrosting as you do getting frozen in the first place. Furthermore, anyone who is relying on the chance of freeze will fail miserably. "Lol using ice moves is luck-based because of freeze" is the stupidest argument I've seen as of yet, which is saying something given the recent Giratina-A discussion.

Next we will be getting rid of critical hits, allowing illegal breeding combination, and suddenly allowing 252 EVs in every stat because "we are playing a simulator."

Quit your bitching about hax and just play the game you were given.
Click to expand...

Are you saying... the hypothetical situation is... hypothetical?!
 
IcyMan28 said:
I was replying to Alphatron's post, I don't see how this counts as a "reboot."

Regardless, here's my reasoning. Even if I didn't think Garchomp adds something positive to the metagame (I do), and lacked a preference either way, that still means that it isn't broken, in my eyes at least. If it were broken...I'd realize it and vote that way.

If those who "don't care either way" simply stand aside, we will have a select few pushing hard to get what they want without any counterbalancing force. That's because the difference between the "bans" and "no-bans" is that while the former has a goal in mind, the latter doesn't, so they won't be nearly as motivated to try and maintain the status quo.

To put it simply, if those who don't care either way simply let others have their way on each and every subject that they don't care about, that is essentially bypassing the entire suspect process, which is a loophole that is FAR too easy to exploit. It's part of the reason why I support getting rid of the "Abstain" option, but that's just me and an entirely different issue.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said I'm not quite changing my stance on thinking that sand veil on it's own does not warrant a chomp ban, but I see what you mean as far as the abstain option goes.
 
The abstain option doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in the voting process. If you're voting abstain then you're saying "I don't have enough experience with the pokemon to say one way or another." It strikes me as odd that people would choose that option at all, if you vote abstain you might as well vote 'keep it' as if people (yourself included) have more time with it then you can make a decisive action of yes or no.
 
if you vote abstain you might as well vote 'keep it' as if people (yourself included) have more time with it then you can make a decisive action of yes or no.
Click to expand...

It said in the voting thread you MUST vote to keep the suspect if you don't know what tier it belongs in. The only case I would vote abstain would be if I wasn't familiar with the suspect and I cant think of another reason I would.
 
So if you aren't familiar with it, you can't possibly know that it is broken and should vote "do not ban."

Either we get rid of the abstain option, or we count the percentage out of ALL the vote (it is currently just out of the "ban" and "do not ban" options).
 
It isn't a blind choice though, it's keeping a pokemon in a tier so they can make a more accurate decision if they (or everyone) finds it to be too strong. If anything it's more honest than putting abstain!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top