SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
4 SpA Slowbro Fire Blast vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Klefki: 180-212 (56.6 - 66.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Leftovers recovery

Please be serious. No one in their right minds allows a pokemon to get 9hko'd... That's literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The fact that slowbro can remove about three turns per switch out is something that you ignored completely. Also, by theory of 9hko, then each slack off extends his lifespan another 4.5 turns.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that Slowbro with Slack Off will die to a 9HKO from Foul Play?

"Forced Out" my ass.

I've got to apologize, dude. I completely missed Slack Off. In that case, I must concede. However, the fact that this scenario becomes entirely luck based is still enough to raise questions about Swag Play. Again, apologies for somehow missing that.
 
But will those hits accomplish anything when you factor in your own confusion damage and foul play? I'd argue that it isn't reasonable to say that Slowbro could stay in and beat Klefki in this situation. Of course, we're not factoring in switching here, which, if Slowbro is truly a counter, would not have to do.

4 SpA Slowbro Scald vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Klefki: 97-115 (30.5 - 36.1%) -- guaranteed 4HKO after Leftovers recovery

Fine. There are no true counters outside of Numel; the other monsters are susceptible to either Confusion, Paralysis, or the damage from Foul Play. Switching is necessary to remove the +2 counters as Slowbro is weak against Dark, even if you are lucky enough to resist Confusion. But it does not mean that Slowbro therefore loses against Klefki. It requires being a better player than your opponent to play around their cheap strategy
 
Let's try to focus the discussion on the combination of Swagger and Prankster (and possibly Foul Play). While Thunder Wave is usually part of the strategy, possibly making it even more uncompetitive and annoying to face, it's not the main problem here. There are ways to play around paralysis that don't revolve around the use of gimmick/obscure Pokémon. Ground and Electric types are common enough to make Thunder Wave a manageable move.

I think the consensus is that Chansey is a full stop to the SwagPlay strategy. I'd like to ask those who use Chansey, how viable it is on non-stall teams. I've personally never used it (HO player here).
 
4 SpA Slowbro Scald vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Klefki: 97-115 (30.5 - 36.1%) -- guaranteed 4HKO after Leftovers recovery

Fine. There are no true counters outside of Numel; the other monsters are susceptible to either Confusion, Paralysis, or the damage from Foul Play. Switching is necessary to remove the +2 counters as Slowbro is weak against Dark, even if you are lucky enough to resist Confusion. But it does not mean that Slowbro therefore loses against Klefki. It requires being a better player than your opponent to play around their cheap strategy

I completely missed the inclusion of Slack Off somehow. Slowbro with slack off can definitely beat Klefki one-on-one, and nobody should attempt at arguing that point. However, Slowbro is still vulnerable to the strategy, so there is only one pokemon completely immune, which is Numel like you said.

I can't argue that counters exist, and there's no reason to do so when we have counters available for (insert anything that is banned), yet those things are still banned. Counters existing is not a reason for something to remain part of the meta.
 
I've got to apologize, dude. I completely missed Slack Off. In that case, I must concede. However, the fact that this scenario becomes entirely luck based is still enough to raise questions about Swag Play. Again, apologies for somehow missing that.

Nope.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=negative binomial distribution n = 4 p = .5

The probability that a 9HKO will kill Slowbro first is approximated by the negative binomial distribution n=4 p=.5, with the CDF function of 5 and above.

The CDF of 5 and above represents the probability that Slowbro fails 5 times (ie: is confused) across the 4 "successes" it takes to kill Klefki. Again, this graph ignores Regenerator and Slack Off for demonstrative purposes. CDF is approximately 75% in favor of Slowbro (ignoring Slack Off / Regenerator).

A negative binomial distribution represents the number of "failures" it takes before you have a number of "successes". n=4 because Slowbro 4HKOs Klefki, he only requires 4 successes to win. Klefki requires Slowbro to have 5 failures before Slowbro is forced to use Slack Off or switch out (5 failures + 4HKO == 9 turns Klefki needs to KO Slowbro).

Knowledge of negative binomial distributions is a college-level subject. So I do suggest studying statistics and understanding the nature of them before playing Pokemon. :-)

I think the consensus is that Chansey is a full stop to the SwagPlay strategy. I'd like to ask those who use Chansey, how viable it is on non-stall teams. I've personally never used it (HO player here).

252 Atk Garchomp Outrage vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 261-307 (37 - 43.6%) -- guaranteed 3HKO

Evolite Chansey outstalls Scarf Garchomp Outrages and wins with Seismic Toss + Softboiled... on its "bad" defense stat. Don't even think of Killing Chansey on the Special Side. Chansey is very viable in OU.
 
Last edited:
The playtests I've partaken in have clearly shown that Swagger is by no means in and of itself broken; that even a pitiful team of four Electrodes can draw a game out to turn 145 without Prankster, without Klefki's amazing typing, without scarves or priority, just by alternating strategically between Swagger, Substitute, and Foul Play; that defanging SwagPlay by removing Foul Play is just about as effective as defanging it by removing Swagger; and that Swagger has niche applications that are not only fair and balanced but are familiar to most seasoned players.

Haunter: Prankster Swagger isn't a problem any more than fast confusion in general is a problem. The boost of Swagger in conjunction with its free turns and Foul Play are the problems.
 
Haunter: Prankster Swagger isn't a problem any more than fast confusion in general is a problem. The boost of Swagger in conjunction with its free turns and Foul Play are the problems.
This is obviously wrong. It's like saying that there's no difference between (a theoretical) priority Spore and a non priority one. Clearly priority confusion exacerbates the problem, since no matter how fast you are, you'll be confused by Swagger and will have to deal with its 50/50 coin flips.
 
This is obviously wrong. It's like saying that there's no difference between (a theoretical) priority Spore and a non priority one. Clearly priority confusion exacerbates the problem, since no matter how fast you are, you'll be confused by Swagger and will have to deal with its 50/50 coin flips.

At fenyxofshadow: Dude that is so wrong. Fast Confusion can be circumvented by simply switching to a faster pokemon. Prankster Swagger on the other hand is priority driven and doesn't give a rip how fast the pokemon in question are.

Klefki has 75 Base Speed, Sableye 50, etc... more than 3/5 of the pokemon database can outspeed Klefki and virtually everyone outspeeds Sableye. These stats don't mean a damn if I can make my non-attacking moves +1 priority.

That is the issue which people have been conjecturing for over 60+ pages about.

P.S. Once again, thank you Haunter for this lovely thread (slowly sharpening objects in the background)
 
Last edited:
Let's try to focus the discussion on the combination of Swagger and Prankster (and possibly Foul Play). While Thunder Wave is usually part of the strategy, possibly making it even more uncompetitive and annoying to face, it's not the main problem here. There are ways to play around paralysis that don't revolve around the use of gimmick/obscure Pokémon. Ground and Electric types are common enough to make Thunder Wave a manageable move.

I think the consensus is that Chansey is a full stop to the SwagPlay strategy. I'd like to ask those who use Chansey, how viable it is on non-stall teams. I've personally never used it (HO player here).

Swagger + Prankster is only problematic when combined with the other parts of Swag Play, which are Thunder Wave, Foul Play, and Substitute. Each of these things on their own are fine and have fair, relevant uses.

The problems, in my opinion, are caused by foul play. The reason I believe this is the case is that it allows defensive pokemon, like Klefki, to fully invest in being as tanky as possible, while also giving it the ability to deal huge damage to certain opponents. Ideally, a team would be built to win, right? So we can agree that, aside from full stall teams, a team would include powerful pokemon that can deal quite a bit of damage, and are invested in their attack stats. Teams counter these powerful pokemon by using defensive pokemon. We'll use Klefki again for this example, which has the best defensive combination in the game. Klefki can be used to wall certain threats, and has a cool use as a utility pokemon, being able to spread status, lay down spikes, and dual screens. It does it's role well, but very few people actually use Klefki in this way. More often than not, people are using it in the form of Swag Play. When this happens, Klefki is able to step out of it's intended role and perform the job of not only an excellent utility pokemon, and can often times become a full-sweeper, who is bulky by nature. It is allowed to be lethal without actually investing any EVs into attack stats, and is allowed to be fast without any investment into it's speed stat through the use of paralysis' side effect of reduced speed. Klefki, when used in this way, is also allowed a significant chance at the removal of autonomy of the opposing player. Due to Prankster, it is also not able to be reliably revenge-killed, and instead, is able to use Swagger on the incoming revenge-killer, thus turning the game into a very important coinflip, which can often determine the result of the game. This is, by nature, uncompetitive.

The set, as a whole, must go. However, each of it's parts has a fair use, and the pokemon who abuse this strategy have other great uses and do not deserve to be removed from the game. Swagger + Foul Play on Prankster pokemon, then, is unfair, and should not be allowed for use. This option removes the strategy, while also not touching anything not deserving of a ban.
 
If this strategy awards an inferior player a single win, ever, over a superior opponent, then we must ban it. Smogon is about making this game competitive.

This is insane. Due to the nature of pokemon, there is always some chance that an inferior player gets a single win over a superior opponent. Always. The inferior player may win because he got a lucky crit or freeze. Or because he used a strategy that is usually bad but can get some "surprise" kills, like scarfing a pokemon that is usually never scarfed. Or the inferior player's team just may happen to have the perfect counters to the superior player's pokemon. Etc.

From reading this thread I now realize there are so many people who would prefer pokemon to be more chess-like, in which the only predicting you have to do is the strategy of your oponent. I bet if they had the chance they would remove all chance based side effects and make all moves 100% accurate, so they can perfectly plan their games 20 turns ahead (some guy said earlier that he would remove ice beam freeze effect if it was possible). Somehow they are under the impression that pokemon is a game for the intellectual elite and hate the idea that a less "skilled" player could defeat them. Pokemon has simply never been this kind of game. Is a children game guys. Sorry if you don't like that.

Yeah, let me go add statistics to my schedule really quick in order to better understand a children's game.

You don't have to learn statistics to play the game, but if you are going to be asserting things such as klefki 9HKOing slowbro is more likely than slowbro beating klefki, it would not be a bad idea to at least make sure that the numbers are on your side before you say it.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=negative binomial distribution n = 4 p = .5

The probability that a 9HKO will kill Slowbro first is approximated by the negative binomial distribution n=4 p=.5, with the CDF function of 5 and above.

The CDF of 5 and above represents the probability that Slowbro fails 5 times (ie: is confused) across the 4 "successes" it takes to kill Klefki. Again, this graph ignores Regenerator and Slack Off for demonstrative purposes. CDF is approximately 75% in favor of Slowbro (ignoring Slack Off / Regenerator).

A negative binomial distribution represents the number of "failures" it takes before you have a number of "successes". n=4 because Slowbro 4HKOs Klefki, he only requires 4 successes to win. Klefki requires Slowbro to have 5 failures before Slowbro is forced to use Slack Off or switch out (5 failures + 4HKO == 9 turns Klefki needs to KO Slowbro).


I believe this is correct way to go about this, not just with Slowbro but for analyzing match ups in general. We can easily estimate favorable vs. unfavorable PrankSwagPlay match ups in this way.

There's a bit of extra complexity with leftovers to make the model better, but I think this is great for estimations.

SwagPlay is great for analysis because it's one of the most quantifiable styles in all of Pokemon -- the outcomes are mostly fixed and can be relatively easily fleshed out.
 
Last edited:
I think the consensus is that Chansey is a full stop to the SwagPlay strategy. I'd like to ask those who use Chansey, how viable it is on non-stall teams. I've personally never used it (HO player here).

Outside of stall, chansey functions better as a catch-all Spdef wall (aka it gives up heal bell or wish) and does do a fairly decent job as a stand alone specially defensive pivot. However, it is a very niche cleric outside of stall to the point that you probably would be better off using one of the fairy clerics. On a balanced team, it would work, however I think the general consensus (as is my own) is that outside of stall, using Sylveon is a better option. The pressure Sylveon can apply is much more noticeable than chansey, and it doesn't give your opponent nearly the amount of free turns.
 
Indeed. Sylveon also resists Foul Play and has Pixelated Hypervoice to bypass subs.

4 SpA Pixilate Sylveon Hyper Voice vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Sableye: 258-306 (84.8 - 100.6%) -- 6.3% chance to OHKO
0- Atk Sableye Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Sylveon: 38-45 (9.6 - 11.4%) -- possibly the worst move ever

If Sableye puts itself behind a sub, it dies to a 4EVed Hyper Voice. So even staying within the SwagPlay subject, I'd argue that Sylveon is another potential "counter" candidate.

I believe this is correct way to go about this, not just with Slowbro but for analyzing match ups in general. We can easily estimate favorable vs. unfavorable PrankSwagPlay match ups in this way.

There's a bit of extra complexity with leftovers to make the model better, but I think this is great for estimations.

SwagPlay is great for analysis because it's one of the most quantifiable styles in all of Pokemon -- the outcomes are mostly fixed and can be relatively easily fleshed out.

Indeed. There are a few caveats that I thought of since that post though.

1. SwagPlay consistently makes the attack go up. So the Slowbro example might be closer to a 5HKO due to +2 on Swagger. At +4, Swagger gets worse. So Slowbro might in fact be forced out (to use Regenerator) vs Klefki on the average.

Nonetheless, Slowbro can fish for the 55% chance by switching in and out as needed. Other pokemon may be neutral (or in the case of Sylveon, resist) Foul Play, and may be a superior dead-stop to the strategy.

2. On the other hand, Confusion has a chance to end. Every time it ends, the defending player gets a free confusion-less turn, and there is a 10% chance that Swagger misses on the next turn.

3. Thunderwave is 25% chance of hax, which is non-negligable.

#3 is the easiest situation to rectify, as we just change the "p" value in the formula as needed.
 
Last edited:
I personally think the moves that solely cause confusion (like swagger, flatter, and confuse ray) be banned (not moves like Hurricane and Signal Beam, which have a chance, but not certainty, to cause confusion). Without confusion (or at least swagger), the strategy is unplayable.

Why ban it over everything else? Simple, it promotes MINDLESS SPAMMING of LUCK-BASED tactics (going off the definition of uncompetitive here) that remove control of the game from a player's hands (again, going off the definition Haunter has in the OP). Yes there are counters, but Genesect had a counter in 5th and 6th (it got banned in both), Latias had counters in 4th gen (got banned), evasion moves have counters (like Aura Sphere Lucario/Togekiss) but they have been banned for as long as I can remember.

My point is that while Swagplay as a whole is debatable in terms of ban-worthiness, I feel that confusion is the worst part of it and arguably the most deserving of a ban, if any part of it deserves being banned, as it can create the same problem as the whole strategy, but in one move. Paralysis at least has something other than hax to benefit you with (the speed cut) and many common things are immune to it--electric types like Rotom-W, Thundurus (both forms), and Zapdos, and (considering the most common method is TWave) ground types like Landorus (both forms), Garchomp, Excadrill, and Mamoswine.
 
This is insane. Due to the nature of pokemon, there is always some chance that an inferior player gets a single win over a superior opponent. Always. The inferior player may win because he got a lucky crit or freeze. Or because he used a strategy that is usually bad but can get some "surprise" kills, like scarfing a pokemon that is usually never scarfed. Or the inferior player's team just may happen to have the perfect counters to the superior player's pokemon. Etc.

From reading this thread I now realize there are so man people who would prefer pokemon to be more chess-like, in which the only predicting you have to do is the strategy of your oponent. I bet if they had the chance they would remove all chance based side effects and make all moves 100% accurate, so they can perfectly plan their games (some guy said earlier that he would remove ice beam freeze effect if it was possible). Somehow they are under the impression that pokemon is a game for the intellectual elite and hate the idea that a less "skilled" player could defeat them. Pokemon has simply never been this kind of game. Is a children game guys. Sorry if you don't like that.



You don't have to learn statistics to play the game, but if you are going to be asserting things such as klefki 9HKOing slowbro is more likely than slowbro beating klefki, it would not be a bad idea to at least make sure that the numbers are on your side before you say it.

Agh, relax with the Slowbro thing. I misread and I've admitted it already, and even conceded that point.

You say that luck will always be a part of pokemon due to it's nature, and I agree. The makers included things like critical hits in order to give an extra dynamic to the game. This is fine and acceptable. Your argument of surprise kills is not luck. A player who does something like this was smart in their teambuilding and there is nothing wrong with them winning a game because of that.

You and I disagree on what an acceptable range of luck in the game is.

I argue that luck is acceptable when a player can not "force" luck to happen in a sense. For instance, I believe Ice Beam's ability to freeze a pokemon is within the acceptable range of luck, A player cannot do anything to make it more likely that an opposing pokemon is frozen, except for repeatedly using ice beam in order to play a statistics kind of game. The player on the other side of the ice beam can obviously avoid this, unless ice beam happens to freeze on the first use. This is still within the acceptable range of luck, as it creates an exciting environment, and it isn't the user's fault that extreme luck happened.

Being in greater control of the dynamic of luck than your opponent, is uncompetitive from my perspective, as it creates an unbalanced stage for competition. Strategies that increase the luck factor, then, are uncompetitive. Take Evasion, for example, since it is similar enough to Swag Play. Evasiveness is basically luck in a stat. Raising Evasion, then, changes the amount of luck. This is used to create situations where the opponent simply can not do anything in many cases. This is very similar to Swag Play in that they both utilize a strategy not to increase the user's chance of doing things, but to decrease the opponent's chance of doing things. When you can attack your opponent's ability to play the game, it is no different than a marathon runner tripping another runner in order to take them out of the race. The runner who tripped the other does not beat the other runner, or outplay them in any way, but rather simply removes the other runner's ability to beat them. This is uncompetitive.

There are also many other problems with the Swag Play strategy aside from removal of autonomy. The users are very commonly (basically always) used in multiples, and have the same movesets and abilities. This gets around the species clause in a way. Base stats do not necessarily matter in the case as the opponent's stats are taken into consideration for damage, and users of this strategy will double layer their defenses through removal of autonomy and the use of substitutes. They functionally are the same pokemon. Another problem with Swag Play is that it allows pokemon to go above and beyond their intended purposes. For instance, Klefki was designed to be a defensive and utility pokemon. Yet with this strategy it is capable of acting as a sweeper, while not investing in attack or speed stats.
 
I really don't like the idea of banning anything to do with Swagplay. There's like , what, 3 Pokemon that can do this well? Also, this has been a legitimate strategy in gen 5 and it hasn't changed at all, unlike topics like Knock Off, so why ban it now?
 
I really don't like the idea of banning anything to do with Swagplay. There's like , what, 3 Pokemon that can do this well? Also, this has been a legitimate strategy in gen 5 and it hasn't changed at all, unlike topics like Knock Off, so why ban it now?
Please read the thread. It forces players to flip a coin to see if they get to move, or hurt themselves. With this, players that lack skill can beat great players without actually doing much on their own. The innate luck dependent nature is unhealthy.
 
Indeed. There are a few caveats that I thought of since that post though.

1. SwagPlay consistently makes the attack go up. So the Slowbro example might be closer to a 5HKO due to +2 on Swagger. At +4, Swagger gets worse. So Slowbro might in fact be forced out (to use Regenerator) vs Klefki on the average.

Nonetheless, Slowbro can fish for the 55% chance by switching in and out as needed. Other pokemon may be neutral (or in the case of Sylveon, resist) Foul Play, and may be a superior dead-stop to the strategy.

2. On the other hand, Confusion has a chance to end. Every time it ends, the defending player gets a free confusion-less turn, and there is a 10% chance that Swagger misses on the next turn.

3. Thunderwave is 25% chance of hax, which is non-negligable.

#3 is the easiest situation to rectify, as we just change the "p" value in the formula as needed.

These caveats apply to all situations, so I think we can generate a "SwagPlay Index" of sorts relatively easily where the same caveats apply to every single instance. I have a bit too much work to do tonight to get this done immediately, but I'll put it on my list of things to program.

1. Iterate over every Pokemon with http://paste.ubuntu.com/6859249/ and pull all attacking moves. With a little Python magic, we should be able to generate a list of all Pokemon with all of their common attacking moves pretty easily.

2. For every Pokemon, calculate for x what xHKO they can beat a given SwagPlay user. We should generalize because there exists more SwagPlayers than just Klefki.

3. For every Pokemon, calculate for x what xHKO they are beaten by Foul Play at +2.

4. Organize the data by greatest differential between the two values to show the Pokemon who are most likely to beat a given SwagPlay user.

5. (Optional) For every Pokemon, statistical analysis to determine an estimation of the % of the times that a given SwagPlayer wins or loses. This will let us know the reliability of every single counter / everything SwagPlay counters and whether or not is truly luck based.

This should generate a list of every single favorable and unfavorable SwagPlay match-up for any arbitrary PrankSwagPlay user against any arbitrary Pokemon. With that in hand, I think we could probably settle what actual counters it and how reliable every counter is.
 
Please read the thread. It forces players to flip a coin to see if they get to move, or hurt themselves. With this, players that lack skill can beat great players without actually doing much on their own. The innate luck dependent nature is unhealthy.

LOL... I think Kairyu-Gen1 has posted 50 plus times trying to get the bottom 20% of players who secretly favor SwagPlay to understand.

Kairyu-Gen1: Lets just agree that these guys are "waxing your hood" as well as anyone else with the common sense to understand that coinflips shouldn't be rewarded.

Skill, prediction and a little luck are needed to win.

Not "luck-induction" that CAN'T be nullified to the priority that Prankster grants non-attacking moves... smfh.
 
I would say it would be a fair ban considering that its a luck based strategy. Such as say moody, Or OHKO moves.

On the other hand looking from people who used this strategy they would say things such as 9 times out of ten it doesn't work. But considering its a 50/50 luck chance I can't simply believe that. The only problem I see with swagplay and why I would have it banned is because its completely luck based and not competitive at all.

But I wouldn't ban the move itself I would ban just Swagger+Prankster. I think banning a move entirely would be a bit absurd. But if it was I could still see as to why.
 
I think the consensus is that Chansey is a full stop to the SwagPlay strategy. I'd like to ask those who use Chansey, how viable it is on non-stall teams. I've personally never used it (HO player here).
I would recommend checking out Matches 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 here if you haven't already. Blissey was used rather than Chansey; and the team was a fairly standard all-purpose ADV OU team, definitely not what you'd call a stall team. If an ADV team with a Blissey can handle SwagPlay this well, I can only imagine the superiority of Eviolite Chansey. I think it's a very, very safe bet that simply tossing a Chansey onto any team would ruin opponent teams running four or six Parafusion Pranksters. It's also a very safe bet that Chansey would enjoy better support from her teammates with access to Generation 4, 5, and 6 Pokémon and moves. That stated, I do prefer Blissey over Chansey given how the line is a Trick magnet.
 
Okay, since you're such an expert at programming you can modify the code so that Swagger can no longer be used in combination with Prankster. Good luck.

It's actually quite easy. team-validator.js ( https://github.com/Zarel/Pokemon-Sh...310d22583c77b37fba6f4280751/team-validator.js ) has a check on abilities. We'd probably just have to check for Prankster and if it is Prankster, then iterate over |set.moves| and look up the id to ensure that Swagger isn't a move on the Pokemon. If it fails this test, then |problems.push(name+"'s move"+set.moves+" is banned because Swagger is not allowed in conjunction with Prankster.")|.
 
I don't have the time to read over every post in this thread...

But this is probably one of the cheapest strategies I've seen. ParaFusion has been an acceptable strategy when luck gets thrown into the mix - however, forcing said strategy is very,very cheap especially considering that Foul Play doesn't even use your own attacking stats meaning you can literally dump everything into the stat of your choice and still get off free. The thing about the Pokemon who can use this "strategy" is one of them is easily countered. Klefki, on the other hand, has one of the best defensive typings in the game, can literally shut down a sweep in one move and can abuse this to high hell. That, combined with how uncompetitive it is and the fact that a handful of Pokemon can take them (and if your opponent was smart, they'd take those out with top priority) makes me feel like that perhaps the combination of Foul Play and Swagger on a set or perhaps Swagger and Thunder Wave on a set should be banned, like the Endless Battle clause banning Leppa + Recycle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top