I don't disagree with you. Frankly, I was always of the belief that this community wanted what was best for any metagame, including space for variation and creativity to thrive. I was simply mistaken. That's all.
-
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 4 - Blaze of Glory
- Thread starter Philip7086
- Start date
- Status
I agree it seems like the community just took a 360 180 when it comes to wanting a balanced metagame. Take 4th gen for example. Everything that was broken was banned even if it only had one good set. Now it seems like everything has gone out the window. More less experienced people are voting because of the rating system. 4 suspect test and the metagame is as bland as ever.
I don't think I'm less experienced and I voted weather to stay. All I can see is that you didn't get ratings and didn't express how you think OU should be through voting. Until you get rights and vote to ban one thing or another, and then it doesn't get banned, then you can complain about the voting pool. I find all of this ridiculous to even read.
Yeah i got to upper 1300's without using someone else's team and I also won quite a few tours not using someone else's team. So im sure I can win a game or two. Not banning anything for the last 4 test is unbelievable. We need to bring back paragraphs or the smogon council or something because its no way that drizzle is balanced at all.
Yeah, turnouts like these are making me miss the Smogon Council more than ever. I'm betting we'd still have Salamence in 4th Gen OU if we left it up to the playerbase to vote (I mean, we almost had Chandelure stay OU for DW on PO). The weather metagame is unbalanced and no fun at all. Way to go, guys.
I guess we're just going to vote Starmie out next so we can keep Drizzle?
I guess we're just going to vote Starmie out next so we can keep Drizzle?
Then why ban anything? Why did we ban lolBlaziken? This is a hilariously horrible argument.
You know, it's posts like these that really piss me off. All you are saying is that your opinions are right and that because a majority of people who earned voting rights disagree, we should change the way things are done.
Post like this are arrogant, biased, and contribute nothing. So please, put some substance in before you post again.
umm... no its not. Its saying that its not cheap because everyone can use it. Cheap =/= broken. Something may be broken, and just not have been banned yet, but using it while it is in OU is not cheap. If it is the best way to win, then if you want it banned, use it to ban it.
get a checkmark before you can complain. Put in the work.
My post was in reference to Pokémon usage during suspect testing periods. It had nothing to do with banning.
People are saying they don't want to use stuff like Wobbuffet and Thundurus during the test because it is "cheap."
Thanks for being unnecessarily snobby though. :)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether we agree with each other or not.
But can I ask, why do you voters, want weather to stay?
What is your reasoning because I don't think I've heard most of you explain yourselves.
(Side Note: Didn't mean for that to sound rude, because I realise it does sound that way, but I just want an honest answer for once and for all.)
But can I ask, why do you voters, want weather to stay?
What is your reasoning because I don't think I've heard most of you explain yourselves.
(Side Note: Didn't mean for that to sound rude, because I realise it does sound that way, but I just want an honest answer for once and for all.)
I could say the same to you, but I don't agree with that. Everyone is affected by the votes, so everyone has a right to complain. However, you can only have that right if you try to do something about it. I am not complaining, so I don't see what your point is.
First of all, I really should not respond to this, as it starts with a direct insult, and therefore does not deserve a response. However, if you really want to know why I support weather, I will tell you.
Weather is a significant part of the game of Pokemon. Many different strategies revolve around weather. The simple variety of strategies and Pokemon made viable because of this is amazing. Additionally, in a metagame that involves 4 forms of weather, they are self balancing, and they all prevent the others from being broken. This is the one and only reason it should stay in OU. Because it is not broken. We ban things that are broken.
As soon as we start banning things because we don't like them, instead of because they are broken, we lose all credibility as the leading competitive Pokemon community.
I want weather to stay because I think it creates a healthy metagame. Most weather teams can beat another weather team while being at risk to the third weather. Then there's things like stall which can pretty much beat every single weather based team and tons of pokemon are getting use. You all complain about top 20 in OU and that's it, but the more I play the more diversity I see -- Azumarill, Espeon, Siglyph; all these pokemon are commonly used and, compared to DP, are actually very, very good. On top of that I haven't seen any evidence of any one of the three weathers being broken -- I don't see how it is so blatantly obvious that Drizzle is broken when I have had just about as much trouble with it as I have sun and sand teams.
The only thing I think is maybe too strong this testing period is maybe excadrill, but maybe I'm just sore about it. I had a good conversation about it with someone not too long ago and he raised some good points about it. Either way this is probably the most balanced I've seen a metagame this early and I intend to try to keep it as balanced as possible.
The only thing I think is maybe too strong this testing period is maybe excadrill, but maybe I'm just sore about it. I had a good conversation about it with someone not too long ago and he raised some good points about it. Either way this is probably the most balanced I've seen a metagame this early and I intend to try to keep it as balanced as possible.
I do not have any sentiment for weather nor do i hate it as passioniately as some people do.
The reason why i voted 'no' is because banishments in generally don't solve anything. Even if we ban weather people will just find something else to start whining about.
Another reason is that i like stable metagames that do not change rapidly through consistend tiering changes. At the moment i feel like i have to keep laddering and playing every day just to keep up to date. I'd really like the thought if i ever can take a 2 month hiatus while still having a working team, which currently seems impossible.
the arguments as to why weather should stay in ou have been said a million times!!!it is stupid for the anti-weather community to ask from the others every so and then to explain them over and over again...
go and check the previous suspect threads and this one and you will find plenty of reasons!!!
we cannot say the same things again and again 'till every single person knows the answer without wasting a little bit of its time to search the suspect threads...
and anyway i think weather should stay 'cause it takes the game to a whole new level that we have never experienced before...it makes so many unviable pokes viable in ou(venusaur,sawsbuck,tornadus,toxicroak,arcanine and even parasect and other weird stuff)without greatly limiting the options of teambuliding!!!of 'course when making a team you must have in mind rain,sand and and sun but as have been said and seen before,weatherless teams are perfectly viable!!!skilled players can make succesfull weatherless teams!for new players it becomes harder to build a good weatherless team but smogon is not about what new players want or do...it is about what the best players do and want!!!
also weather wars are very fun since thay have a lot of strategy involved...as said before it is like a chess game where the weather inducer is your king and your weather sweepers your queen!
i am just posting my point of view about weather in a sort text...i am not going to answer to flamers or anyone that says omg weather is broken your post is so wrong...
go and check the previous suspect threads and this one and you will find plenty of reasons!!!
we cannot say the same things again and again 'till every single person knows the answer without wasting a little bit of its time to search the suspect threads...
and anyway i think weather should stay 'cause it takes the game to a whole new level that we have never experienced before...it makes so many unviable pokes viable in ou(venusaur,sawsbuck,tornadus,toxicroak,arcanine and even parasect and other weird stuff)without greatly limiting the options of teambuliding!!!of 'course when making a team you must have in mind rain,sand and and sun but as have been said and seen before,weatherless teams are perfectly viable!!!skilled players can make succesfull weatherless teams!for new players it becomes harder to build a good weatherless team but smogon is not about what new players want or do...it is about what the best players do and want!!!
also weather wars are very fun since thay have a lot of strategy involved...as said before it is like a chess game where the weather inducer is your king and your weather sweepers your queen!
i am just posting my point of view about weather in a sort text...i am not going to answer to flamers or anyone that says omg weather is broken your post is so wrong...
the explanation of cheapness only relates to usage of those said "cheap" elements, shown by this passage
"Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In the Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing."
"Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In the Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing."
Yay, you brought up Sirlin! While I have used this exact article in many other discussions, I think this is where is best applies. While it does not really take into account how Pokemon works, and how the rules can be ever changing do to bans, as long as you play within the rules, there is nothing that I think describes this situation better than that article.
Hi, long-time player, very sporadic player...nice to meetcha.
I don't know a lot about the voting procees, or suspects, but I DO remember something I read a few years ago...and I think it stands true here...
"If you think Manaphy should be banned, then go out, make a rain team, and smash people with it to PROVE he's banworthy."
if you think a weather-based metagame is unbalanced, then go out, make a cookie cutter weather team, and work your way up the ladder, and earn your right to vote it off.
Personally (I haven't gotten the chance to play the BW metagame yet, but I think the previous statement still stands), I like this weather metagame. DP play only had 1 reliable perma-weather in SS...a generally-concieved-as-meh one in Hail, and a setup aggro-only one in rain. I have wanted to use Rain Dish for age now, but it's not really plausible in a DP metagame, since 5 turns on healing is pathetic.
And come on...Sun is finally VIABLE. this means nothing to people?
Take it from a n00b. either earn your vote, or shut up and deal with the weather. Pack Lickylicky if it bugs you THAT much. Odds are, if you're not good enough to earn your vote, you're not a seasoned enough player to offer a worthwhile opinion.
...or you've been bumped out by another seasoned vet...but that's not my point...
I don't know a lot about the voting procees, or suspects, but I DO remember something I read a few years ago...and I think it stands true here...
"If you think Manaphy should be banned, then go out, make a rain team, and smash people with it to PROVE he's banworthy."
if you think a weather-based metagame is unbalanced, then go out, make a cookie cutter weather team, and work your way up the ladder, and earn your right to vote it off.
Personally (I haven't gotten the chance to play the BW metagame yet, but I think the previous statement still stands), I like this weather metagame. DP play only had 1 reliable perma-weather in SS...a generally-concieved-as-meh one in Hail, and a setup aggro-only one in rain. I have wanted to use Rain Dish for age now, but it's not really plausible in a DP metagame, since 5 turns on healing is pathetic.
And come on...Sun is finally VIABLE. this means nothing to people?
Take it from a n00b. either earn your vote, or shut up and deal with the weather. Pack Lickylicky if it bugs you THAT much. Odds are, if you're not good enough to earn your vote, you're not a seasoned enough player to offer a worthwhile opinion.
...or you've been bumped out by another seasoned vet...but that's not my point...
Here's why I voted for all weather to go:
Weather does not create "team diversity" like some people think. Rather it creates different sets of team archetypes. There's standard sand, balanced rain, rain stall, and sun offense (the rarest). This can be looked at like any other metagame, like DPP, where you have balanced, offense, stall, stuff like that. However, the major difference is that in those other metagames, team builds vary wildly. Weather team archetypes are restrictive. If you're running into a sand team, it's most likely at least 5/6 the same as the team you just faced (ttar/dory/garchomp/rotom-w/jirachi). If you're facing a rain stall team, it's likely the same as the rain stall team you just faced. If you're facing a sun team, it's likely the same as the sun team you just faced. Even if you go outside weather, the fact that weather exists extremely limits the viable non-weather teams you can use. So if you're facing a team without weather...you get the point.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that weather archetypes may seem to promote diversity on their face, but in practice they're extremely restrictive and create a bland metagame where everyone at the top is using the same/similar teams. If weather were to be removed from the metagame, that would create true diversity in teambuilding.
Weather does not create "team diversity" like some people think. Rather it creates different sets of team archetypes. There's standard sand, balanced rain, rain stall, and sun offense (the rarest). This can be looked at like any other metagame, like DPP, where you have balanced, offense, stall, stuff like that. However, the major difference is that in those other metagames, team builds vary wildly. Weather team archetypes are restrictive. If you're running into a sand team, it's most likely at least 5/6 the same as the team you just faced (ttar/dory/garchomp/rotom-w/jirachi). If you're facing a rain stall team, it's likely the same as the rain stall team you just faced. If you're facing a sun team, it's likely the same as the sun team you just faced. Even if you go outside weather, the fact that weather exists extremely limits the viable non-weather teams you can use. So if you're facing a team without weather...you get the point.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that weather archetypes may seem to promote diversity on their face, but in practice they're extremely restrictive and create a bland metagame where everyone at the top is using the same/similar teams. If weather were to be removed from the metagame, that would create true diversity in teambuilding.
Consider the new rating system. I have faith that many people of the so-called "smogon council" (I wasn't around in those days) would have voted for weather to go. But because many people can vote with any overpowered team nowadays (hmm...what's the most overpowered kind of team? maybe...rain?), why would the voters that got to the top using rain want to remove it? I think that most of these people don't care how broken rain is, they just want to use it for themselves.
So you voted no not because rain wasn't broken, but because you didn't want to hear people start complaining about other things. Sounds pretty lazy to me.
I'd rather have players to decide rather than a boys club, whether I like the voting results or not. The "council" was a joke.
The fairly balanced metagame we achieved at the end of Gen IV took 2 years of suspect testing. All in all i don't see how that metagame was amazing enough to warrant that insane amount of work and the controversy it brought throughout the years.
Complaining will continue whatever the result will be. The only thing i care about is to avoid a series of banishments that will last the entire generation.
But you just said that last gen's balance was achieved at the end of 2 years of testing and banning. You're saying that you don't want that to happen again, therefore you DON'T want a balanced 5th gen metagame?
- Status