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

[Dragontamer]

My final question will be, why the hell do you want to keep this god damn "strategy" around so bad? It adds nothing to the metagame, it lets players beat better ones with a noticeable degree of success (at least compared to "traditional" ideas of skill).

Because I believe Smogon is a non-scrubby place. And scrub-style bans should not be allowed here. Smogon has always rewarded the creativity of players.

I've already outlined my strategy to evaluating strategies. The ability to predict SwagPlay battles is a textbook Negative Binomial Distribution. I have studied statistics and I gain the strategic advantage over less studied mathematicians. I am perfectly comfortable with predicting the future of battles involving SwagPlay.

And I believe Smogon can too. Smogon is the premier Pokemon battling site. And I'd hate to see Smogon defeated by a strategy that is so easily modeled by well-documented statistical models.

What does SwagPlay add to Pokemon? It rewards those who have studied the Negative Binomial Distribution. It rewards those who can peer into the future, and see the chances of winning 6, 7, 8 turns from now to a simple strategy. It rewards play who can envision the future.

And yes, I deride scrubs who refuse to even _attempt_ to analyze the problem because it is "luck based". All of Pokemon is luck based, and has always been a very difficult statistics problem.

 

[Sinning]

The entire point of this is HAVING to bring an Espeon or something in order to counter SwagPlay. This surely proves that at the very least, Swagger should be banned.

Not necessarily. In OU currently, we have to bring things like Talonflame counters, Mega Zard counters, etc. What's important here is whether, in nature, this tactic creates a situation where competition is removed and the game becomes a series of coin flips. While I agree that this is a problem and needs to be banned, we have to argue the correct points here.

 

[StonekingZ]

Because I believe Smogon is a non-scrubby place. And scrub-style bans should not be allowed here. Smogon has always rewarded the creativity of players.

I've already outlined my strategy to evaluating strategies. The ability to predict SwagPlay battles is a textbook Negative Binomial Distribution. I have studied statistics and I gain the strategic advantage over less studied mathematicians. I am perfectly comfortable with predicting the future of battles involving SwagPlay.

And I believe Smogon can too. Smogon is the premier Pokemon battling site. And I'd hate to see Smogon defeated by a strategy that is so easily modeled by well-documented statistical models.

Although I would never call this "creative" to use the fact you have knowledge in Statistics doesn't exactly justify this as a "Strategy".
Luck based, clearly is not competitive, in the slightest, and that's what this is about.
Not Luck based Statistics. This is essentially Evasion with the added problem of hitting yourself for double the damage you normally would.

Would you like to argue how No Guard 'mons counter Evasion? Of course not, because it isn't a "Strategy", it's banking on hax and luck to pull you through to a win.

 

[JustDoingStats]

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. :-)

This is way too simplified. It ignores Leftovers and Substitute on Klefki, it ignores the chance to be fully paralyzed, it ignores the damage dealt if/when Slowbro hits itself in confusion. You say that you only need four successful attacks from Slowbro, but if Klefki has Leftovers, full HP, and Substitute, Slowbro has to get at least five successive, successful attacks in order to KO. It's too difficult a problem to model that simply. You'd do much better to actually simulate the battle.

 

[Sinning]

Because I believe Smogon is a non-scrubby place. And scrub-style bans should not be allowed here. Smogon has always rewarded the creativity of players.

I've already outlined my strategy to evaluating strategies. The ability to predict SwagPlay battles is a textbook Negative Binomial Distribution. I have studied statistics and I gain the strategic advantage over less studied mathematicians. I am perfectly comfortable with predicting the future of battles involving SwagPlay.

And I believe Smogon can too. Smogon is the premier Pokemon battling site. And I'd hate to see Smogon defeated by a strategy that is so easily modeled by well-documented statistical models.

What does SwagPlay add to Pokemon? It rewards those who have studied the Negative Binomial Distribution. It rewards those who can peer into the future, and see the chances of winning 6, 7, 8 turns from now to a simple strategy. It rewards play who can envision the future.

And yes, I deride scrubs who refuse to even _attempt_ to analyze the problem because it is "luck based". All of Pokemon is luck based, and has always been a very difficult statistics problem.

The thing is, when we start bringing up the "scrub" thing, we must also keep in mind other bans. If we're banning things, we're doing one of two things; either creating arbitrary rules because we are, in fact, scrubs or admitting that we play a game that is uncompetitive by nature.

I believe we're doing the latter. Like you said, all of Pokemon is luck based. A luck based game, then, by nature, is an uncompetitive and shallow game. And it would be hard to round up all of Smogon and label every single player as a "scrub" when we have some of the best players on earth among us.

The bottom line is that Smogon either creates all of it's rules because we're all scrubs, or that Pokemon is a shallow game, and by banning things, we can create a more strategic game that is actually enjoyable to play.

Swag Play does not reward those with knowledge of statistics. I have never studied statistics in my life, yet I've been stealing wins all day with this strategy.

 

[Dragontamer]

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Simborg/LuckVsSkill/index.html

Much has been said and written about luck vs. skill in backgammon, and I have heard many different opinions, but I want to give you not only mine, but what most of the top players in the game I have talked to believe.
Backgammon is a game of skill, and the more skill you have, the more likely you are to win. That is proven time and time again in tournaments and match results. But it is proven only in the long run.

Pokemon is a game where we let the RNG decide major elements of the game. Poker, Mahjong, Bridge, Backgammon, these are all games where a beginner can beat an expert due to luck. No Poker expert can win against a beginner who drew a Royal Flush. No amount of bluffing or reading will help you against an ignorant beginner who gets lucky draw on the River in Texas Hold'em.

But calling Bridge, Backgammon, or Hold'em "shallow" because it has a larger RNG factor than other game... I dunno. Everyone knows that these games are extremely luck-based, but also require extreme amounts of skill.

 

[Aldaron]

About dragontamer's post, just want to clarify that whether or not you agree with that point almost doesn't matter.

Whether or not that is true, the fact remains that we as a community have the ability to determine a ruleset that minimizes certain factors if we so choose.

So even if Pokemon tends to be, in the long run, a game that proves the better player, perhaps we want to reduce the amount of time this takes on average?

The point is that even if a game proves the more skillful player over the long run, that doesn't mean we can't improve the conditions that go into that evaluation.

 

[StonekingZ]

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Simborg/LuckVsSkill/index.html



Pokemon is a game where we let the RNG decide major elements of the game. Poker, Mahjong, Bridge, Backgammon, these are all games where a beginner can beat an expert due to luck. No Poker expert can win against a beginner who drew a Royal Flush. No amount of bluffing or reading will help you against an ignorant beginner who gets lucky draw on the River in Texas Hold'em.

But calling Bridge, Backgammon, or Hold'em "shallow" because it has a larger RNG factor than other game... I dunno. Everyone knows that these games are extremely luck-based, but also require extreme amounts of skill.

There's a huge difference in Luck in which you can't help (Missing, crits, burns, poisons ETC.), and forcing someone to have to bank on luck to win. . .

 

[Ader]

Whether or not that is true, the fact remains that we as a community have the ability to determine a ruleset that minimizes certain factors if we so choose.

So even if Pokemon tends to be, in the long run, a game that proves the better player, perhaps we want to reduce the amount of time this takes on average?

The point is that even if a game proves the more skillful player over the long run, that doesn't mean we can't improve the conditions that go into that evaluation.

Following that line, why should'nt we ban everything and just leave one single pokemon on OU?
That way, the best player will win, since the playing field is perfectly flat and there's no difference between the players except their skill levels.

My final question will be, why the hell do you want to keep this god damn "strategy" around so bad?

Actually, you know what? Forget it. Arguing with you has wasted enough of my life as it is. Every moderator post I've seen points to this thing getting banned one way or another, and seeing you fight it all the way down just leaves me depressed at humanity.

Glad to see that smogon now allows for ad hominem attacks when they agree with the offender's position.
Since you've been calling others "morons", "idiots" and telling them they're "a waste of my life", why do you bother discussing on a video game forum?
And why the hell do YOU want to ban SwagPlay so bad?

 

[birdcrest]

I realize this thread is in the OU section, but would these bans apply for the whole simulator (i.e. would they apply to LC)?

Yes, but not Ubers.

 

[StonekingZ]

Following that line, why should'nt we ban everything and just leave one single pokemon on OU?
That way, the best player will win, since the playing field is perfectly flat and there's no difference between the players except their skill levels.

If that wasn't the most evasive argument brought to the table I don't know what is.

And why the hell do YOU want to ban SwagPlay so bad?

Although this was not directed at me, I feel I should answer with a clear, quick, concise answer.
Making the game luck based, is not Competitive, which, Smogon strives to maintain.

 

[Sinning]

I'd like to suggest an article for anyone involved in this discussion.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

What I'd like you to read is the first half of it - the parts that describe the scrub mentality and depth of games.

Read this, and I'd like you to consider two things.

1) Is Pokemon a competitive game by nature, or does it lack depth?

and

2) Are Smogon players a bunch of scrubs, or people who just happen to enjoy Pokemon, and would like to make a strategic game out of what is otherwise little better than a game of flipping coins?

My answer to these two questions is 1) No, Pokemon is NOT a competitive game in it's purest form, and it does lack depth, and 2) Smogon players are simply players who happen to like Pokemon, and our enjoyment of the game did not stem from "true" competitive Pokemon (that is, Pokemon in it's truest form, with no bans). Rather, we see potential for a competitive game relating to something we enjoy, whether that is the video games, anime, etc. and we desire to make a competitive game out of it. We are not like the rest of the Pokemon community, and would be regarded as scrubs by those who play "real" competitive pokemon. Think along the lines of people like Verlisify, as laughable as anything he believes or says is. Those kinds of people simply can't understand what we're trying to accomplish, because they do not understand that Pokemon, at the base level, is an uncompetitive game.

 

[Dragontamer]

There's a huge difference in Luck in which you can't help (Missing, crits, burns, poisons ETC.), and forcing someone to have to bank on luck to win. . .

Okay, what is the probability that Chansey loses to Klefki in SwagPlay?

Here's a hint:
+6 4 Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 21-25 (2.9 - 3.5%) -- possibly the worst move ever

Klefki runs out of Foul Play PP before it can kill a +6 Chansey. On the other hand, Chansey 4HKOs Klefki and has Softboil to recover its HP.

 

[SHUCKLE MAN]

A Calm Togekiss with only 4 SpA EVs using Air Slash vs. a Bold Slowbro with 252 HP EVs and 0 SpD EVs has a 99.9% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery, according to the calculator. Air Slash has a 60% chance to flinch the opponent with Serene Grace. Let's not even involve Thunder Wave in this equation: let's simply ask what the odds are of flinching the enemy Slowbro every turn for four turns in a row. 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.6 or 12.96%. In other words, the odds of flinchhaxing a Slowbro to death without once allowing him to get an attack in, even in the absence of Thunder Wave, is three times greater than the statistic you provided. By your logic of "since it can AND HAS happened," we must needs ban Air Slash + Serene Grace as well.

I should very, very much like to think that we are not going to ban Air Slash + Serene Grace.

I agree with you in a way. There was a problem with Air Slash + Serene Grace in the past, but the strongest user of the strategy (Shaymin-S) got banned, rather than a complex ban. Whether these types of combos are broken usually depend on the Pokemon itself more than anything. Shaymin-S was on a whole other level, being very fast, having great special attack, and Seed Flare, which is really strong and nearly always causes a special defense drop thanks to Serene Grace. The others aren't so good. Something like Serene Grace Headbutt Dunsparce isn't worth using, since its stats aren't built for it like Shaymin-S's are.

Prankster is a bit different though, since your speed stat doesn't matter (unless the opponent is also using a +1 priority move). Also, things have changed on this forum since Gen IV. We could just ban Klefki and Sableye, but these days we go to great lengths to avoid banning a Pokemon where possible, so I can almost guarantee it'll be a complex ban of some sort.

 

[StonekingZ]

Okay, what is the probability that Chansey loses to Klefki in SwagPlay?

Here's a hint:
+6 4 Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 21-25 (2.9 - 3.5%) -- possibly the worst move ever

Klefki runs out of Foul Play PP before it can kill a +6 Chansey. On the other hand, Chansey 4HKOs Klefki and has Softboil to recover its HP.

So, you're telling me I MUST bring a Chansey or counter?
You realize that's typically why most bans happen.
When something pretty much REQUIRES you to bring something that counters it.

Or, what can and I believe should happen, the strategy it gets the boot as a whole. SwagPlay is not competitive, and if you believe it is even in the slightest, I'd suggest you look into what it means to be competitive around here.

 

[Yuelia]

Okay, what is the probability that Chansey loses to Klefki in SwagPlay?

Here's a hint:
+6 4 Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 21-25 (2.9 - 3.5%) -- possibly the worst move ever

Klefki runs out of Foul Play PP before it can kill a +6 Chansey. On the other hand, Chansey 4HKOs Klefki and has Softboil to recover its HP.

Even setting aside the whole issue of being required to bring Chansey in the first place, believe it or not, the swagplayer has six team members. It's not just Klefki.

And here's the thing: while mindless swagplay indeed gets stomped by Chansey, competent swagplayers adapt. Taunt and Encore exist, and good swagplayers will make use of moves like this. Even Toxic is a thing; sure, Chansey has Natural Cure, but it'll still be forced out, and the swagplayer will then have a Sub up.

This is why Mandibuzz doesn't work either, because against a good swagplayer, you'll promptly see Thundurus used Thunderbolt! and there goes your counter. Not every member of a swagplay team needs Thunder Wave for the strategy to work (hell, Sableye can't even learn it in the first place).

 

[SHUCKLE MAN]

So, you're telling me I MUST bring a Chansey or counter?

No, he's not telling you that...

This happens in every suspect thread I've ever read. Someone suggests a way to beat something, then someone else replies "Well, I shouldn't be FORCED to use that". Nobody said you have to use it.

 

[Dragontamer]

So, you're telling me I MUST bring a Chansey or counter?
You realize that's typically why most bans happen.
When something pretty much REQUIRES you to bring something that counters it.

Or, what can and I believe should happen, the strategy it gets the boot as a whole. SwagPlay is not competitive, and if you believe it is even in the slightest, I'd suggest you look into what it means to be competitive around here.

If you think Chansey is the only surefire counter to SwagPlay, you aren't playing very creatively.

Hippowdon 2HKOs Klefki and is immune to T-Wave. At +2, Hippowdon OHKOs Klefki, but Klefki still has issues doing much damage.
+2 4 Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Hippowdon: 97-115 (23 - 27.3%) -- possible 5HKO after Leftovers recovery

Prankster Thunderous can Substitute up, and start setting up a Nasty Plot sweep.

Sylveon beats Klefki 1v1, OHKOs Sableye through subs... takes only ~13% from +2 Foul Plays and striking through subs with Hypervoice.

I don't even know why I'm listing this anymore. All the competent arguers don't even believe that Prankster-Swag is "op". Its about morphing the metagame to some arbitrary standard (that so happens to line up with hyper-offensive strategies)

(hell, Sableye can't even learn it in the first place).

If Prankster Swagger is such a problem, why wasn't it banned from Sableye in Gen5? Thundurus itself is Ubers capable, so I can favor a possible Thundurus ban.

 

[Ader]

1) No, Pokemon is NOT a competitive game in it's purest form, and it does lack depth
Agreed
2) Smogon players are simply players who happen to like Pokemon, and our enjoyment of the game did not stem from "true" competitive Pokemon (that is, Pokemon in it's truest form, with no bans).
"True" competitive pokemon does not mean it shouldn't have bans.
Even the official format has it's bans, you know.
Still, banning things because "it's not competitive!" seems a bit shaky to me, almost sounds like a "wah it beat me so we banned it!"

Think along the lines of people like Verlisify, as laughable as anything he believes or says is. Those kinds of people simply can't understand what we're trying to accomplish, because they do not understand that Pokemon, at the base level, is an uncompetitive game.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"We're just 2deep4u, you will never understand us!"
Please, just stop

If that wasn't the most evasive argument brought to the table I don't know what is.
I can call your argument evasive as well, can I be smrt too?

Although this was not directed at me, I feel I should answer with a clear, quick, concise answer.
Making the game luck based, is not Competitive, which, Smogon strives to maintain.
Crits, Parahax, Secondary effects on moves, the list goes on.
Your move.

My answers in bold.

 

[StonekingZ]

If you think Chansey is the only surefire counter to SwagPlay, you aren't playing very creatively.

Hippowdon 2HKOs Klefki and is immune to T-Wave. At +2, Hippowdon OHKOs Klefki, but Klefki still has issues doing much damage.
+2 4 Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Hippowdon: 97-115 (23 - 27.3%) -- possible 5HKO after Leftovers recovery

Prankster Thunderous can Substitute up, and start setting up a Nasty Plot sweep.

Sylveon beats Klefki 1v1, taking ~13% from +2 Foul Plays and striking through subs with Hypervoice.

I did not say Chansey was the only stop to this. But when I go into a battle, unsuspecting of someone using this "strategy" and I don't have something that can take it on 1v1, then I can potentially hand this person a free win.

You're right, Kelfki can't OHKO it but you're not taking the fact I have a 50% chance to hit myself into the equation. Which reduces that 5HKO to far less. Yes, there is lefties recovery but the next tun I can very well hit myself again. You're behind a sub, I break out of confusion break your sub, and you swagger again. It's not a 5HKO anymore I can promise you that.

You're right, Sylveon can break the sub, provided I even get the chance to hit it. . .

My answers in bold.

My move had been made a few posts back.
There is a HUGE difference in hax that I can't help (Misses, crits, status) and forcing me to have to break through the 50% chance (less if paralyzed) to land an attack.

 

[Sinning]

"True" competitive pokemon does not mean it shouldn't have bans.
Even the official format has it's bans, you know.
Still, banning things because "it's not competitive!" seems a bit shaky to me, almost sounds like a "wah it beat me so we banned it!"

Nah, there is no problem with losing to your opponent. That's competition, you know. The problem comes when your opponent isn't beating you, but the RNG is, because your opponent is allowed to create a situation where it is more lucky for you to get a turn than it is not.

As for your second "point", please, go back to /vp/ or something. Your memespeak isn't clever and doesn't offer any argument.

 

[Sinning]

Precisely! As an offense player myself who has loathed stall for generations, what I see in this archetype is the promise of a new niche in teambuilding which gives stall some fresh meat to shred and HO a healthy slice of humble pie. I feel like this discussion has been far too dominated by offense players and we could really use some more stall players like yourself weighing in.

At the end of the day, you get only twenty-four moveslots across six creatures. You get up to twelve types. You get up to six abilities. You can't possibly have an answer to everything. There is an unrealistic expectation demonstrated by many in this thread that if a threat cannot be answered by their current team without making some sacrifices (even sacrifices as minor as a single moveslot) then it is too powerful and has to be gotten rid of. People do not seem willing to accept that sometimes they will encounter a team for which their team of choice is simply not an ideal match-up and that they will lose. Constantly pruning the metagame to fit held-over expectations from earlier generations is not practical. We mustn't keep banning everything that makes our DPPt & BW teams and playstyles unable to secure us victories. When stall cried tears of blood last generation because of the sheer power of new OU heavyweights like Terrakion, did we budge? No. Did we ban stall's executioners? No. We said "c'est la vie" and we allowed nature to take its course. Why we're taking the opposite approach now is beyond me, but it isn't right. If new threats have emerged that make HO unviable, so be it. If new threats have emerged that encourage adoption of new approaches to team building, so be it.

I haven't had a problem with the bans so far this generation. They have mostly (if not entirely) been creatures which not only centralized standard play but tore through most teams in the meta save the most dedicated of anti-meta teams. But with SwagPlay, I just can't believe that a single stall team with an Elo as pitiful as even 1300 would fail to devour them, bones and all. It feels like we're banning Rock for the sake of Scissors so that it may continue on decimating Paper uninhibited.

This really has nothing to do with counters, though, as many have stated. Is it uncompetitive or not? That is all that matters when determining if this is worthy of suspecting.

 

[AuguryOfRuin]

If Prankster Swagger is such a problem, why wasn't it banned from Sableye in Gen5? Thundurus itself is Ubers capable, so I can favor a possible Thundurus ban.

Unless I'm mistaken in some form it was banned. Maybe it was liepard+swagger but I'm pretty sure prankster swagger was banned in gen 5(very late gen 5)

 

[Yuelia]

I don't even know why I'm listing this anymore. All the competent arguers don't even believe that Prankster-Swag is "op". Its about morphing the metagame to some arbitrary standard (that so happens to line up with hyper-offensive strategies)

Did anyone claim Endless Battle was "op"? Was it banned for being "op"? No, it was banned for being fundamentally non-competitive. This isn't some arbitrary standard.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we were playing a card game (Magic, Yugioh, make up your own, I don't care). I play a card that says "Roll 1 die. If you roll a 1 or 2, you win the game; otherwise, you lose the game." Is this overpowered? Not particularly, the odds are in your opponent's favor here. Is it non-competitive? Without a doubt in hell. If you win with this, there is nothing at all your opponent can do, they just lost entirely because they were unlucky, all of that deckbuilding just flew straight out the window.

If Prankster Swagger is such a problem, why wasn't it banned from Sableye in Gen5? Thundurus itself is Ubers capable, so I can favor a possible Thundurus ban.

Usage. It didn't even show up on Antar's moveset pastes. People just plain weren't using it, so nobody thought it needed a ban. If someone had used Funbro in gen 5, it would have been banned all the way back then, for the same exact reasons it has been banned now.

 

[StonekingZ]

Precisely! As an offense player myself who has loathed stall for generations, what I see in this archetype is the promise of a new niche in teambuilding which gives stall some fresh meat to shred and HO a healthy slice of humble pie. I feel like this discussion has been far too dominated by offense players and we could really use some more stall players like yourself weighing in.

I play mostly Stall actually. So, I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not, but I do in fact play stall and am still for giving this the boot.