Actually, despite the fact that I have laddered, I haven't encountered swag play much, or at least not enough to make educated posts on it, so most of my posts have been theoretical. Swag play is a dominantly theoretical problem anyway because of how it's inconsistent. We've already established how it's not broken, and when I tested swag play, I didn't really see any problems because I was shooting myself in the foot almost as much as I wasn't, and I don't particularly see why a anyone would use it over conventional teams unless they weren't good enough to ladder naturally
-
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.
SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)
- Thread starter haunter
- Start date
- Status
Because against top players, where you might only have a 20% chance at winning, SwagPlay can boost your chances at getting the undeserved win. Thats why you use it. You don't lose anything, because its a battle you had a low chance of winning anyway, and SwagPlay gives you a better shot at just haxing your way to victory. Sure, this is potentially more of an issue in Bo1 Matches that you see in tourneys, rather than a ladder situation, but this is the basic idea as to why SwagPlay can easily be argued as being unhealthy for the game, because it risks turning the game into a coinflip, where luck dictates the victor rather than skill.
Wait for Feb usage stats. If it actually has a high usage then maybe I'll consider changing my position.
Again, if it wasn't as big of a problem as you think it is, why are there people wanting to ban this "strategy"? One user posted battles against players on the ladder with high ratings and beat them using his version of SwagPlay. I'm not saying that this strategy always works(hence why you said you were "shooting yourself in the foot")but it works to the point that it endangers the metagame.
Sorry for the poor wording, I was just trying to justify not ignoring someone only because they haven't taken the hours to ladder. I was not trying to justify keeping swagplay around
We have already accumulated more pages than in the last suspect discussion wow.
How come people are proposing the complex ban of Swagger+Foul Play? It's probably the worst decision that can be taken after all this discussion. Both for pro-ban and anti-ban sides. Let me summarize the positions that have been taken:
Do nothing: not OP, overall hax is balanced out across multiple battles, its simplest versions can be played around (the more complex ones involving hazards, Ditto, etc. actually require skill), etc.
Ban Confusion+Prankster+Foul Play: it's true that anything that can be done with Swagger+Prankster can be also done with Confuse Ray or Flatter replacing Swagger. However, the addition of Foul Play means that this complex ban attacks the viability of the strategy. It might as well be enough to ban only Swagger+Prankster+Foul Play, as this strategy is not viable without Swagger.
Ban Confusion+Prankster: with priority, a swagplayer can always enforce a situation where chance will decide the next thing that happens. This same situation can also be generated with any other confusion status move.
Ban Swagger+Prankster+Foul Play: this is the set used by all the common swagplayers. This complex ban has the advantage of not harming any other actually competitive strategy involving Swagger to which Prankster can aid (see the section of "Ban Swagger").
Ban Swagger+Prankster: this is the simplest ban that will get rid of the issue.
Ban Swagger+Foul Play: just no. If anything, Foul Play increases the reliability of Swagger. This idea should be dropped unless you are willing to argue that SwagPlay is OP. Plus, this still allows priority confusion.
Ban Swagger: Swagger has competitive value: its usage together with Foul Play to increase damage output (particularly used by defensive mons against offensive pokemon) Swagger+Unaware (SwagSire), Swagger+Psych Up, Swagger+Imposter, Swagger+SubLeech, Swagger+SubRoost, as an anti-setup check, etc. Furthermore, Swagger's confusion effect is no more chance-reliant than Confuse Ray and Flatter; if anything, it increases the risk and the reward. Same as the previous one, this idea should be dropped unless you are willing to argue that Swagger is OP.
Ban Confusion: it can be argued that the confusion mechanic is harmful for the metagame, so moves causing Confusion (at least as primary effect), should be banned.
Ban Confusion and paraflinch: some people have been trying to convince others that paraflinch is different from parafusion; however, truth is that they work on the same principle.
EDIT:
When I thought that the worst thing to do after the discussion was banning Swagger+Foul Play, someone proposed banning Foul Play alone -a unique move with a quite big value.
There are proposals around that want Thunder Wave banned or some combination of it with the previous bans. However, I don't find them worth of detailed mention, and I'll just note that, whatever happens with T-wave, it should also happen with Glare.
How come people are proposing the complex ban of Swagger+Foul Play? It's probably the worst decision that can be taken after all this discussion. Both for pro-ban and anti-ban sides. Let me summarize the positions that have been taken:
Do nothing: not OP, overall hax is balanced out across multiple battles, its simplest versions can be played around (the more complex ones involving hazards, Ditto, etc. actually require skill), etc.
Ban Confusion+Prankster: with priority, a swagplayer can always enforce a situation where chance will decide the next thing that happens. This same situation can also be generated with any other confusion status move.
Ban Swagger+Prankster+Foul Play: this is the set used by all the common swagplayers. This complex ban has the advantage of not harming any other actually competitive strategy involving Swagger to which Prankster can aid (see the section of "Ban Swagger").
Ban Swagger+Prankster: this is the simplest ban that will get rid of the issue.
Ban Confusion: it can be argued that the confusion mechanic is harmful for the metagame, so moves causing Confusion (at least as primary effect), should be banned.
Ban Confusion and paraflinch: some people have been trying to convince others that paraflinch is different from parafusion; however, truth is that they work on the same principle.
EDIT:
When I thought that the worst thing to do after the discussion was banning Swagger+Foul Play, someone proposed banning Foul Play alone -a unique move with a quite big value.
There are proposals around that want Thunder Wave banned or some combination of it with the previous bans. However, I don't find them worth of detailed mention, and I'll just note that, whatever happens with T-wave, it should also happen with Glare.
Last edited:
I don't have a complete anti-ban argument. I recognize that the combination of bulky well-typed monsters, priority status moves, and Foul Play is a problem.
However, it's not skill-less to use a formulaic set to win (2 Drag/1 Mag, among many other cores), if you are able to adapt that set to a variety of play styles, which has clearly been demonstrated. Think of it like this. Instead of +2 and then sweep, you -2 the opponent and then have the possibility, but not guarantee, to sweep. In exchange, you aren't walled nearly as easily (even Blissey can get unlucky).
As we have seen, by including a Ditto and good cleaners, the team can benefit from the advantage despite the inherent inaccuracy of confusion moves. You're essentially using a temporary Sleep move with a 45% chance of giving you a free turn (rather than Confuse Ray at 50%, Hypnosis at 60%, Sleep Powder at 75%, and Spore at 100%), but regardless of whether or not you get a free turn, you're still giving them the stat boosts (with an acceptable 90% chance). The stat boosts are the important part that allows Foul Play to be abused; the free turns are just a bonus that allows the user to set up, just as they would with anything else that generates free turns; the self damage is considered a side-effect for utility just as Burn's damage (crippling physical is goal) and Paralysis' free turns (crippling Speed is goal). The Ditto helps if things go awry, and the cleaners are meant to come in once the main threats have been tickled to death.
For those who keep arguing that inaccurate moves aren't unfair: rather than thinking that Hydro Pump is fair because you're inflicting the -20% accuracy on yourself, I feel it's unfair because you're turning the game into a dice roll just to get an extra 20% power.
What I'm arguing is that Klefki and Thundurus, the two new relevant users of the combination, are overpowered because of their defenses and type combinations allowing them to capitalize on the free turns they generate and the stat boosts they give to their opponent without worrying much about being killed by the attackers. The other Prankster users have little presence or threat, or they have better things things to do than abuse Swagger. I maintain my position that SwagPlay was not a problem last generation, and it's only a problem because of these two threats. Annoyer is an archetype of monsters.
If a complex move ban is to happen, ban the combination of Swagger and Foul Play, or ban Foul Play in general.
You forgot all the people calling for Twave bans.
Regardless, I'm sticking with saying the first two bans suggested in the op are the only realistic ones. Anything else fails to address the problem, bans more than just the problem, or is too complex.
and,
The problem is priority swagger, which has a 90% accuracy and give a 50% chance to move. I don't see how banning foul play solves anything
Mostly by removing teeth and forcing Klefki to run offense. You might as well be using Sand Attack or Whirlwind (depending on goal) if you're trying to use a Confusion move without a real way to abuse it.
Other than that, Foul Play essentially gives any monster as much attack investment as their opponent, on a 95 power and largely unresisted move, without any investment whatsoever. It really is rather unfair.
Sand attack, but with multiple stages, and instead of missing, you hurt yourself with an effective 80 base power typeless move. And unlike sand attack that takes turns to stack, it only takes 1 turn to set up swagger, and with priority your opponent will almost never get a safe turn
Last edited:
Funny thing is about this thread is about how most people say you need the skill. The funny thing about that is having luck is a skill you must have for this metagame. Examples would be being lucky you are getting the predicts right. Being lucky you won a battle because of the skill you have. Mostly everything comes down to a luck based skilled metagame because the ones who are at the top of the metagame have the most luck in them. Banning swagplay would be useless.
This definitely reminds me of the moody test; just as uncompetitive and almost as powerful. For reference, moody is still banned this gen even though roar and whirlwind don't check accuracy. That means that moody has 2 common counters, and is still considered to uncompetitive to remain. Very similar to this situation here. It can be countered, its not broken, but its really stupid and needs to be removed from serious play (smogon's metagames).
skill is not luck, skill is skill. Are you sick...
you're implying a more complex view of luck, such as that luck is the product of opportunity and preparation. While I normally support these claims, for the sake of this argument, lets stick with luck as only the dice role mechanic of the game and label the rest as "skill"
The thing I am trying to say is that skill has luck in it because you need the skill the play to be lucky. I'm not saying all skill is luck. There is a portion of skill that requires luck.
If you're gonna give a reason, please make sure said reason is at least an actual word.
;_; I meant "inertia"
So you're saying any game that requires reading your opponent, including chess, is luck-based because you got lucky that your opponent made the move you predicted? I'm not entirely sure how that argument applies to a suspect thread that is suspecting a move that has the user rely on the RNG rather than the player's "luck-based skill".
I'm agreeing with the idea to Ban Swagger. If it were 30% chance to hit yourself or if the move wasn't 100% accurate then there might be some real room to debate, but the fact that it's 50% chance to hit yourself and the move is 100% accurate I feel that it really shows how bad it can be. It also doesn't hurt that everything can learn this move unlike other confusion inducing moves.
._. it's 90%
People would rather win luck because of someones bad choice. If the random number generator has to be dragged out people get upset because it's the game who decides who wins, not the players. If a Blastoise uses ice beam on a fire type because they forgot to add on water attack like surf and not predicting a switch and the enemy trys to predict surf with a grass type but gets hit hard by ice beam, it's a lucky attack will little skill on Blastois's part but still had more input between the two players. If Klefki swaggers an Arcanine and it fails every confusion roll (on top of paralysis) it's very frustrating because the Klefki didn't do anything by chance to make their situation better, they just made it the games fault Arcanine was useless the whole game.
Priority confusion is not a problem. Hitting yourself because you are confused is not a problem. Prankster + [INSERT STATUS MOVE] is not a problem. But you are purposely stacking the odds against your opponent AND you have a way to abuse those odds. Foul Play is a legitimate move on Klefki. If this ban were to take effect, who in the right mind would use Swagger over Foul Play? I asked a few pages ago if this ban was too complex to be enforced. I still would like an answer to that question.
It's luck, but atleast it's your fault you slipped up and not the random number generator doing its thing.
- Status