What they said also probopass is a straight upgrade cause steel typingIs level 1 Nosepass with Berry Juice, Toxic, and Pain Split going to be an actual thing?
What they said also probopass is a straight upgrade cause steel typingIs level 1 Nosepass with Berry Juice, Toxic, and Pain Split going to be an actual thing?
Is level 1 Nosepass with Berry Juice, Toxic, and Pain Split going to be an actual thing?
Don’t do that, anything that uses sleep scarf hoopa can beat anyway, now that snorlax is banned anyway. Unless you’re worried about camerupt, which is bad anywaySleep is so common that I often run a lum berry on my Hoopa U
(first off i did in fact make a post saying it should be banned, xd)Last time we had a public suspect test, Power Construct ended up being 1 vote away from a ban despite literally (and I really do mean literally, go and check for yourself) nobody making any kind of post or sentiment that it should be banned. If that doesn't seem fishy to you, I don't know what would.
fair.Additionally, with COIL gone, the suspect system has to be remade. You'd think it would be as easy as making gxe requirements with battle count limitations, but we're not 6v6. We would need much steeper battle count restrictions, and to set a somewhat reliable point of gxe to determine whether or not someone is worthy of voting, something with such a high minimum battle count that it wouldn't be possible, or at least very unlikely, for someone to get reqs on a mere lucky streak of battles.
That said, I do still believe that public suspect tests were taken away because of the abuse of the privilege of voting, rather than COIL being removed.possibly both, but who knows/cares. At the end of the day, I believe the council acted in the better interest of keeping the meta healthy, over the irrational demands of the community who would literally rather discuss unbanning Zekrom than participate in a suspect test.
At this point, I forfeit. They were in fact presented as proper suspects, and in the case of proper suspects, a vote is a vote, regardless of whether someone treated their vote with proper respect or if they wiped their ass with it.someone like deg, or glyx maybe would say "people voted to ban this or not to ban this because they dislike deg" or "they used !pick to vote" or maybe even a "they got told what to vote by someone else", as if these are actually relevant number of people and not an extreme minority (no proof of this other than word has been shown btw). i'd dare even say that people being told what to vote is actually a bigger problem in legitimate tiers like ru where people don't care about the tier, only a tc badge.
I forfeit this point as well. The questioned suspects were explicitly given the "60% = ban" format, and did not reach that %.re: the point that the council is only breaking a tie on a 53 or 59% vote -
how exactly is there a tie. there was a close vote. it was completely legitimate. close but legitimate. maybe the community is divided but this isn't the end of the world.
and what a great post it was
In the current suspect system we have, pretty much all discussion is driven by posts on smogon, due to the fact that discussion in the room or on discord can vary depending on whoever's active at the time, thus making those outlets less reliable for viable discussion, whereas smogon is something that displays all posts for all to see, at any time of day, which is why this is where all the bans, unbans, tournaments, etc happen.this brings me to my next point. people are not obligated to post about their vote. 1v1 is a tier where the playerbase is a bit more casual than pretty much any other tier, and we need to accept that. notice how there really only was 1 notable ban snorlax post, which was mine. had my parents not been away in hawaii leaving me with a bit of down time, that post would not be made and snorlax would not be banned. posting about banning this or that is pretty time consuming, effortful, and generally risky. you don't know that your opinion is agreed upon by other people, much less the council. maybe you put a ton of effort into a sleep post like someone like tda has, and it gets nowhere. you should not HAVE to post. i mean of course ideally people do, but it's not the end of the world if not.
Ultimately, I can't really defend the actions that occurred a few months back. I can only provide guesses as to what their rationale was for doing what they did (as a brand new smogon conversation was created when I became council, so I don't have access to the old one ;<).the 1v1 suspects currently are a joke. this maximum circlejerky bullshit of an oligarchy needs to change.
tldr free public suspects, at this point i've given up on kyubrachi, i just want public suspects back lol.
hey hey hey its your favorite snorlax banner dom here with the proposal to make votes public again.
i have a problem with the action of closed "suspect" votes. i think we all do. i think there really wasn't too much of a problem beforehand when zygod wasn't banned, kyubrachi wasn't banned, etc. i think that closing off the public vote was quite frankly disrespectful and insulting to the playerbase. there was no problem with the voter pool at all, with votes from 1v1 players and non players alike.
someone like deg, or glyx maybe would say "people voted to ban this or not to ban this because they dislike deg" or "they used !pick to vote" or maybe even a "they got told what to vote by someone else", as if these are actually relevant number of people and not an extreme minority (no proof of this other than word has been shown btw). i'd dare even say that people being told what to vote is actually a bigger problem in legitimate tiers like ru where people don't care about the tier, only a tc badge.
re: the point that the council is only breaking a tie on a 53 or 59% vote -
how exactly is there a tie. there was a close vote. it was completely legitimate. close but legitimate. maybe the community is divided but this isn't the end of the world.
(first off i did in fact make a post saying it should be banned, xd)
this brings me to my next point. people are not obligated to post about their vote. 1v1 is a tier where the playerbase is a bit more casual than pretty much any other tier, and we need to accept that. notice how there really only was 1 notable ban snorlax post, which was mine. had my parents not been away in hawaii leaving me with a bit of down time, that post would not be made and snorlax would not be banned. posting about banning this or that is pretty time consuming, effortful, and generally risky. you don't know that your opinion is agreed upon by other people, much less the council. maybe you put a ton of effort into a sleep post like someone like tda has, and it gets nowhere. you should not HAVE to post. i mean of course ideally people do, but it's not the end of the world if not.
fair.
here's my proposal: 70+ gxe, 100 battles. 250 game battle limit.
done. this seems fair, i think. 70 gxe isn't too easy to get i think. and if you want a higher game count, go ahead. if you want a higher gxe, go ahead. i just think this is a good starting point. sorting the current top 500, 139/500 have a 70+ gxe. ~= 28%. 72 is fine too, i guess. it wouldn't be a problem that the voter pool would be low (i found it ironic that ti pointed out a low voter pool in february when he made the voter pool like 8 people lmao) because the council vote is a small pool.
...well if it's a small voter pool then why is the council vote a problem. i'll tell you why! they don't play the tier, mostly. the addition of glyx, despite me not being the #1 glyx fan is good because she plays 1v1, lol.
ti - does not play publiclly. claims to play on "alts" in the 1500s. does not play in tournaments. not a high level player in any sense of the imagination.
deg - plays a decent, but not great, amount on ladder. pretty much 0 tour results in sm despite a little bit of participation.
uc (ahah im the reason he's tl, throwback) - pretty much 0 tournament participation, much less results. ladders fairly casually and uses bullshit sometimes.
uop - played a ton last year, cool. little to no 2018 tour results, or really any results. i think he did ok in a seasonal.
mace - plays ladder & tours. good for him.
glyx - plays tours and snipes on ladder. good enough i guess? good and undeniable tour results though.
so that's 2/6.1/3 of the council plays at a decently high level in 2018 tournaments, of that 2/3 majority really don't have great results in general. = i don't trust them.
the 1v1 suspects currently are a joke. this maximum circlejerky bullshit of an oligarchy needs to change.
tldr free public suspects, at this point i've given up on kyubrachi, i just want public suspects back lol.
However, I want to let it be known that I intend to free public suspect tests in the near future.
So, for the next test, we will be picking from the LT qualifiers. Either random four from everyone, or if we can wait long enough, the four semifinalists. I hope that is an objective enough selection.
I fundamentally disagree with this logic as closing public tests was never the right solution. If you believe the majority of people had misinformed opinions you could always just make the reqs harder. Your subjective opinions disallow people who actually care about and play the meta from having a say, regardless of how competent they are in said meta. Your only counter-arguments revolve around a completely theoretical basis of Snorlax or Tapu Koko remaining unbanned if they went to a public test, but you fail to see the majority of players posting in support of these two bans within the thread. I could also argue that the majority of users who post in this thread know more about the metagame than half the council but that point has been driven into the ground.Nobody is saying that closing public tests is a good thing, not even me. But it was a necessary evil to balance the metagame. I won’t talk about the past or that Tapu Koko and Snorlax probably wouldn’t have been banned with public tests. However, I want to let it be known that I intend to free public suspect tests in the near future.
Picking from LT qualifiers doesn't solve the issue here, especially if you go along the route of randomisation. Public suspect tests are the only logical answer here, and it's somewhat concerning that despite the amount of pushback you're getting for what is objectively a bad move on the part of the council, that you decide to do nothing and instead double down. Please bring back public suspect tests before any more decisions are made.Regarding the rotational council, while it does look the way it does, the intention was to pick the best of the best active players that are not questionable users. And it was picked before we posted the test, so we legitimately didn’t factor in which way they lean towards. However, I can understand the doubts. So, for the next test, we will be picking from the LT qualifiers. Either random four from everyone, or if we can wait long enough, the four semifinalists. I hope that is an objective enough selection.
good for you "intending" to free them, despite there being a literal suspect a week ago with a closed, and even circlejerkier vote than the koko one. i find it funny how you say it's a necessary evil when my entire post was telling you why it was pointless and arbitrary with the tier worse off in the hands of people who don't play the meta.Nobody is saying that closing public tests is a good thing, not even me. But it was a necessary evil to balance the metagame. I won’t talk about the past or that Tapu Koko and Snorlax probably wouldn’t have been banned with public tests. However, I want to let it be known that I intend to free public suspect tests in the near future.
what????? okay, so instead of having a public but difficult vote where you get roughly 10 people to vote (ideally more, but you seem to have 0 problem with small voter pools) who are motivated, proven, and have had enough time to carefully think out their vote, you'd rather have a council vote where again 60% of the people haven't proven themselves in sm + a completely random and arbitrary pool of people who didn't even sign up to vote and who probably won't care too much. but ignoring that, i find it fucking hilarious how you choose a ladder tournament to (arbitrarily) represent the 1v1 tournament community's vote when you could just make a difficult ladder instead.Regarding the rotational council, while it does look the way it does, the intention was to pick the best of the best active players that are not questionable users. And it was picked before we posted the test, so we legitimately didn’t factor in which way they lean towards. However, I can understand the doubts. So, for the next test, we will be picking from the LT qualifiers. Either random four from everyone, or if we can wait long enough, the four semifinalists. I hope that is an objective enough selection.
good for you "intending" to free them, despite there being a literal suspect a week ago with a closed, and even circlejerkier vote than the koko one. i find it funny how you say it's a necessary evil when my entire post was telling you why it was pointless and arbitrary with the tier worse off in the hands of people who don't play the meta.
what????? okay, so instead of having a public but difficult vote where you get roughly 10 people to vote (ideally more, but you seem to have 0 problem with small voter pools) who are motivated, proven, and have had enough time to carefully think out their vote, you'd rather have a council vote where again 60% of the people haven't proven themselves in sm + a completely random and arbitrary pool of people who didn't even sign up to vote and who probably won't care too much. but ignoring that, i find it fucking hilarious how you choose a ladder tournament to (arbitrarily) represent the 1v1 tournament community's vote when you could just make a difficult ladder instead.
ti, it comes across to me that you want to have power and vote in these 1v1 suspects ( hence the low pool and it being a council vote) without actually playing it or proving yourself in any way at all. but i think for the tier to be better off, we need to have a meta where people who have shown they actually play the meta vote. you have not gotten reqs in sm at all.
the lt picking nonsense is quite laughable, just make reqs hard, dude.
it'll be banned eventually. someone needs to make a lenghty ban mimikyu post, or you should expand on yours. curse is just an imo worse jumpluff, but the thing about curse is it takes advantage of the possibility of being sd, which is neat. i think its versatility pushes it over the edge. ban, i guess? not too passionate.I've already posted what I want to see in 1v1 but I really haven't developed my idea last time plus the Snorlax ban overshadowed my topics.
Firstly, I'd like to bring the attention to Mimikyu. I'm positive everyone knows about that Pokemon and knows how restricting it is. Mimikyu boasted a high 17.5% usage stats which puts it above everything else, separating it from Charizard by a margin of 2%. Secondly, Mimikyu is easily built around and can be slapped around some teams to fix a lot of weaknesses. Mimikium-Z + Curse or SD/Bulk Up are all equally viable and corners most threats in the metagame. Running a set over another doesn't come with a huge opportunity loss which means that Mimikyu can easily adapt to metagame trends and fit many teams easily. Both of these points goes with the suspect philosophy. This is just looking at this from the outside. Examining Mimikyu's in game play shows that the opponent is restricted both in teambuilding and in-game play. While 1v1 is all played in teambuilding and your first pick means that being restricted in, not one but both of them, is unhealthy for the metagame.
Curse Mimikyu acts similarly to Perish Song. It passively kills you without even acting, as the opponent hides behind Protect and Substitute, and in Mimikyu's case Disguise which allows it to easily set up curse without fearing taking damage turn 1. This means that being slower than Mimikyu, and not having Mold Breaker clones, result into an autoloss if not carrying recovery. Even then, Let's Snuggle Forever can just deal high damage which pushes your Pokemon to the edge. While Curse might lose to bulky threats with recovery sometimes, SD/BU Mimikyu is just the opposite. Mimikyu uses Diguise to easily set up and deal with your bulky Pokemon with a +2 attack. Sweet and short, Mimikyu deserves to be banned.
i'm all for banning zmoves in any way, shape, or form. but chief, i might agree with you in a snorlax meta. maybe. but at this point i don't think pz + melo are broken. snorlax i think is the best way to argue that normalium is busted, but thats banned, yeet. i also don't think banning 1 zmove actually solves anything. melo + pz aren't broken so this is kind of a stupid ban post-snorlax. i wouldn't /mind/ a zmove ban but it seems very pointless and does nothing to solve the incredibly unhealthy state of a completely zmove meta. if you think 1v1 is healthy right now you're insane (or you never played oras, prolly both actually)Secondly, I'd like to bring up Normalium-Z. Now people will start complaining and saying why Normalium-Z and not Z-moves as a whole. For one simple reason, Z-moves aren't broken in general as they don't push everything to the edge meanwhile Normalium-Z pushes over 3 users to the edge. I really do believe that Snorlax was broken due to Sleep AND Normalium-Z, without one or other Snorlax wouldn't be banned. Porygon-Z, and Meloetta are other examples of Pokemon that Normalium-Z push over the line. Both aren't your typically broken Pokemon, specially Meloetta, but they can be much more threatening than other Pokemon in the metagame, looking at you PZ, which restricts a big part of teambuilding. In no way, Porygon-Z and Meloetta are broken now but they are close, and with Snorlax being banned this puts up 3 Pokemon that are powerful only due to Normalium-Z. Meanwhile Z-moves in general do not break anything, most Z-move users like Dragonite, Magearna and Landorus-T have fair counters and aren't a pain to deal with.
vro can you give it up? think about it from the perspective as someone who isn't a moron. sleep was not banned with snorlax, an incredibly unhealthy mon that got 0 objections from the council vote, so why would it be banned without the only real mon that pushed it over the edge? there will be cheese in 1v1. hypnogar, yawnpert, or whatever the fuck. but i think in a sub spamming zmove metagame these mons aren't great (jumpluff doesn't care about sub but it has other problems, namely being the easiest mon to build around in 1v1 period). hypnogar beats pretty much nothing without using hypnosis. it hasn't been used in tournament matches because it doesn't actually beat anything in particular. my point is that if sleep isn't banned in a meta with snorlax then it won't be banned in a meta without it. i legit do not understand the thought process of someone who still wants sleep banned with its best abuser being jumpluff.Thirdly, sleep. Yes we're back here again. I played a while with Snorlax banned with and against Sleep and I still see sleep moves being a huge problem in today's metagame. By calling an element healthy or not in the metagame you have to look and ask yourself if the negatives outweight the positives or vice-versa. In sleep case, the negative parts clearly outweight the positive parts. Sleep moves just force the game to be nothing but a coinflip. The opponent has no room to think, or to outplay the sleep abuser as his moves are rendered completely useless which leaves him praying to wake up. I don't want to see arguments about "uh! Focus Blast is also a gamble". There's a difference between putting YOURSELF in a situation where you can lose to hax and where you're FORCING hax into your opponent. In Focus blast case, whether you hit or miss the opponent can create counter plays in a lot of cases, but sleep doesn't allow him to outplay you and just leaves him trapped in sleep turns. Won't add more cause this subject has been milked so much, pro-sleep ban provided so much replays and arguments and I'm waiting for anti-sleep ban to do the same as their counter arguments so far only relies on theories.
free kyubrachi etc etc etc. i don't see this happening in a private council vote as deg you're the only one who voted dnb, i think. either take dragonite or free kyubrachi (which absolutely would balance the meta out). i'm for unbanning kyubrachi but the thing is that the council won't do it, and ti despite taking a sizable amount of Ls when talking about a council vs public vote probably wouldn't have a public kyubrachi vote. i think the idea about freeing kyub shouldn't be that it wasn't broken (this will get us nowhere), instead that the council vote was absurd, and wouldn't happen in any actual tier that isn't an om. the only reason smogon smods haven't stepped in and btfo'd ti is because they don't really care about "just an om". example: doubles council rachi vote.Fourth, unban Kyurem-Black. This is probably the unban that I dislike the most till now as no real reason was provided and I still believe that Kyurem-Black isn't broken at all. Kyurem-Black got mostly banned for theorically being able to beat all the metagame. Sorry to burst your bubble but Kyurem-Black cannot beat the whole metagame and specially cannot afford carrying sets like Electrium-Z and Groundium-Z most of the time. Both of these sets come with a huge opportunity loss and are rarely run as an emergency button when Kyurem-Black is the last Pokemon to be added. Icium-Z is as good as Choice Scarf in generation 6 and never pushed Kyurem-Black over the edge. It has a selection of counters such as most Steel-types, a good portion of Fighting-, and Dragon-type Pokemon. Plus the metagame has definitely evolved since the last time Kyurem-Black was unbanned so I'm positive that the new discovered sets and such nerfed Kyurem-Black, if not a lot, by a bit.
Turns out Mace may have edited his sheet but I happen to have a copy open prior to and copy/pasted it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fvx2n1haX3BgBu4pU7h3dZB7D4rSibzWUc0p4hhxiSw/edit?usp=sharing
Accuracy reducing moves shouldn't be banned. "They're luck based" is a totally flawed argument to use in a metagame where luck is almost everything by design. What sets 1v1 apart from all the other metagames and what makes it so interesting is that the "skill" is entirely in the teambuilding, not in the playing. After you've made a team, winning a game all comes down to predicting/guessing what mon your opponent is going to send out, and countering it. If you designed a set that your opponent can't answer at all, you auto-win, and vice-versa. Anyone who has played this meta for more than a few minutes can tell you that nearly every match is a game of rock-paper-scissors when you're facing someone with a well made team.
When you ban entire strategies like accuracy reduction, it hugely reduces the skill needed to build a well-rounded team. This isn't even taking into account that accuracy reduction is a pretty poor strategy anyhow, because it's inherently unreliable and the odds are stacked well against you in getting your opponent to miss a Z-move for example, which are most likely going to just KO you. It also doesn't differ much in practice from defence boosting, aside from being more unreliable, having arguably fewer viable users and having more counterplay (such as subs). All banning it does is reduce the number of gimmick strategies that are available, and that just leads to a stale meta dominated by Z-moves and megas.
What sets 1v1 apart from all the other metagames and what makes it so interesting is that the "skill" is entirely in the teambuilding, not in the playing. After you've made a team, winning a game all comes down to predicting/guessing what mon your opponent is going to send out, and countering it. If you designed a set that your opponent can't answer at all, you auto-win, and vice-versa. Anyone who has played this meta for more than a few minutes can tell you that nearly every match is a game of rock-paper-scissors when you're facing someone with a well made team.
All banning it does is reduce the number of gimmick strategies that are available,
Accuracy reducing moves are banned from 1v1 for the same reason Evasion increasing moves are. It creates scenarios in which either one of or both players are unable to do anything besides wait to see the results of RNG as to whether or not a move directed at the abuser of the strategy connects. This is inherently uncompetitive by design, and should only be brought up to discussion if you're willing to make a case for freeing both Accuracy dropping AND Evasion increasing, as they both perform the same role with very few slight differences.Accuracy reducing moves shouldn't be banned. "They're luck based" is a totally flawed argument to use in a metagame where luck is almost everything by design. What sets 1v1 apart from all the other metagames and what makes it so interesting is that the "skill" is entirely in the teambuilding, not in the playing. After you've made a team, winning a game all comes down to predicting/guessing what mon your opponent is going to send out, and countering it. If you designed a set that your opponent can't answer at all, you auto-win, and vice-versa. Anyone who has played this meta for more than a few minutes can tell you that nearly every match is a game of rock-paper-scissors when you're facing someone with a well made team.
When you ban entire strategies like accuracy reduction, it hugely reduces the skill needed to build a well-rounded team. This isn't even taking into account that accuracy reduction is a pretty poor strategy anyhow, because it's inherently unreliable and the odds are stacked well against you in getting your opponent to miss a Z-move for example, which are most likely going to just KO you. It also doesn't differ much in practice from defence boosting, aside from being more unreliable, having arguably fewer viable users and having more counterplay (such as subs). All banning it does is reduce the number of gimmick strategies that are available, and that just leads to a stale meta dominated by Z-moves and megas.
Everything has some element of RNG but not to the extent of accuracy reducing moves. Maybe every 1/10 times your Volcarona misses an Overheat or gets a SpD drop, but these are uncommon and more importantly, not the primary purpose of the set. Maybe the odds go up - we're talking about Iron Head flinches now, but again, you're probably not running Iron Head with the intention of flinching. Even sleep has redeeming factors against accuracy reducing moves with their high (66%) odds of success, so even though it was RNG, it wasn't hax most of the time."They're luck based" is a totally flawed argument to use in a metagame where luck is almost everything by design
AgreedWhat sets 1v1 apart from all the other metagames and what makes it so interesting is that the "skill" is entirely in the teambuilding, not in the playing.
Disagreed. More often than not, by quite a large margin, it's not. You're going to have ambiguous matchups almost always, sometimes a mon won't beat anything and/or a mon beats multiple things. RPS is a gross oversimplificationAnyone who has played this meta for more than a few minutes can tell you that nearly every match is a game of rock-paper-scissors when you're facing someone with a well made team.
Any team that is any good at all would NOT have accuracy reducing moves with very few exceptions (ie PP stallers trying not to get critted, Pokemon with an extra moveslot going for some cheese wins). Additionally, low usage turns "hugely" into "almost unnoticeably."When you ban entire strategies like accuracy reduction, it hugely reduces the skill needed to build a well-rounded team.
Defense boosting doesn't involve (or rely upon) RNG. Gimmicks are not strategies. Z moves and Megas make up barely half of the meta.It also doesn't differ much in practice from defence boosting, aside from being more unreliable, having arguably fewer viable users and having more counterplay (such as subs). All banning it does is reduce the number of gimmick strategies that are available, and that just leads to a stale meta dominated by Z-moves and megas.
This isn't true at all. Accuracy drops are far less efffective than evasion boosting. 1) there's no move which drops accuracy by 2 stages, unlike evasion. 2) accuracy drops don't work against sub users, whereas evasions works regardless. 3) there are many relevant abilities like clear body which completely shut down accuracy dropping (eg, metagross could stay in pre-mega form to keep clear body and spam meteor mash until the opponent dies). 4) There are moves like mud-slap which have type-immunities. And there are probably others I'm missing too.Accuracy reducing moves are banned from 1v1 for the same reason Evasion increasing moves are. It creates scenarios in which either one of or both players are unable to do anything besides wait to see the results of RNG as to whether or not a move directed at the abuser of the strategy connects. This is inherently uncompetitive by design, and should only be brought up to discussion if you're willing to make a case for freeing both Accuracy dropping AND Evasion increasing, as they both perform the same role with very few slight differences.
Interest in AG as a metagame has been rapidly growing, and in my opinion it is just as if not more skillful than Ubers, owing to the much wider variety of ways to build a team. Things like sleep spam, evasion, baton pass, etc, despite being called "uncompetitive", are not top-tier because the metagame easily adapts to them.Just because the natural format of the metagame is inherently less competitive than other formats doesn't mean we shouldn't be pursuing the ideal of being as competitive as we can be, else we would just be something like AG with no bans at all, which technically welcomes the most "gimmick strategies" of any metagame.
The pursuit of "balance" is harming this meta. It's a nebulous idea which attempts to kill off strategies instead of allowing the metagame to evolve and adapt to them. Balance =/= skill, especially in this metagame where the skill is in 1-upping your opponents in the teambuilding phase, and to be able to do that sustainably, we need more tools to work with.Lastly, we do not, and should not, have bans and unbans for just the simple reason of keeping the meta from becoming stale. Staleness is an interpretation that can vary from person to person that nobody can really control, and trying to combat the notion would just lead to more and more unhealthy decisions in attempts to "stir up" the metagame. Please consider all this and try to make an argument with more valid reasoning that shows why and how the addition of Accuracy dropping and Evasion increasing would help towards balancing the metagame, as balance is the ultimate goal that we are trying to achieve when undergoing any kind of metagame change.
How is going from a pure 50/50 to a scenario that is more favorable for you than your opponent a bad thing? If something isn't successful/relevant enough in the metgame to warrant a ban, then it shouldn't be, simple as that. Bans should be based on practice, not principal. Also, your Deoxys example is rather poor because Hoopa-U can use its signature move which bypasses accuracy checks and would OHKO Deoxys regardless of what it tries to do.This goes exactly against what you've said before. With having accuracy reducing moves, you change matchups that used to be rock-paper-scissors like you said they were into "oh can I hit him or not." Yes it's un reliable, but that doesn't make it so that it shoudl be there. There's a reason OHKO moves are banned. They are extremely un-reliable with a 30% hit rate max, but can one-shot pokemon. It's another gimmick that isn't allowed in the tier as of right now, and no one's arguing them back in. There plainly just is no reason for them to be in the tier. They take away fun and skill from the game, since with both, it can just not matter if you win the rock-paper-scissors, but only if you get lucky that they either miss, or you hit your OHKO move. There's no fun in cheating someone out of a win they should've had because they picked Hoopa-U vs your Deoxys-Speed. They won the RPS fair and square, except when you have sand attack on your Deoxys. Then they don't win when they should, and that's entirely based on luck, not skill.
Sleep spam is totally top tier in AG, via darkrai in gens 4-6 and vivillon in gen 7; similarly, Baton Pass is banned from ubers for good reason. AG’s popularity vs. ubers largely stems from the fact that ubers is just a shitty metagame. In principle, I do agree that not everything that’s uncompetative is unfun -I’ve had a lot of fun playing AG, and BH and some of the more broken AAA and 1v1 ladders - but these uncompetative bans are, in fact, a generally good thing that 1v1 has for a reason.This isn't true at all. Accuracy drops are far less efffective than evasion boosting. 1) there's no move which drops accuracy by 2 stages, unlike evasion. 2) accuracy drops don't work against sub users, whereas evasions works regardless. 3) there are many relevant abilities like clear body which completely shut down accuracy dropping (eg, metagross could stay in pre-mega form to keep clear body and spam meteor mash until the opponent dies). 4) There are moves like mud-slap which have type-immunities. And there are probably others I'm missing too.
For the record, I'm supportive of evasion boosting too since it doesn't take much effort to counter or even beat without even needing to change your team at all, and would introduce some desperately-needed alternative strategies into the game. Legalizing accuracy dropping before moving on to a discussion about the decidedly more powerful evasion boosting is a no-brainer because it's a mere gimmick which is only banned out of fear-mongering about RNG.
Interest in AG as a metagame has been rapidly growing, and in my opinion it is just as if not more skillful than Ubers, owing to the much wider variety of ways to build a team. Things like sleep spam, evasion, baton pass, etc, despite being called "uncompetitive", are not top-tier because the metagame easily adapts to them.
The pursuit of "balance" is harming this meta. It's a nebulous idea which attempts to kill off strategies instead of allowing the metagame to evolve and adapt to them. Balance =/= skill, especially in this metagame where the skill is in 1-upping your opponents in the teambuilding phase, and to be able to do that sustainably, we need more tools to work with.
How is going from a pure 50/50 to a scenario that is more favorable for you than your opponent a bad thing? If something isn't successful/relevant enough in the metgame to warrant a ban, then it shouldn't be, simple as that. Bans should be based on practice, not principal. Also, your Deoxys example is rather poor because Hoopa-U can use its signature move which bypasses accuracy checks and would OHKO Deoxys regardless of what it tries to do.