Balanced Hackmons Suspects and Bans
Note: to jump to the official ban-list directly, click hereWelcome to the Balanced Hackmons Suspects and Bans thread. The purpose of this thread is to stay in spirit with the one verbatim created here. However, as can be seen in that thread, there are primarily two chief problems that, in my opinion, hamper our decision making process so far:
- The first and main problem in these suspect discussion, is the throwing around of colorful terms that sound ominous and dangerous, and easily try to sway one's opinion; things like centralizing, overcentralizing, unstoppable, impossible to be countered, destabilizing, meta-threatening, broken, overpowered/OP and much more. The main problem is that despite the weight in these words, on their own, they have little context and therefore meaning in terms of BH.
- The second problem is, of course, the unsure footing of BH's ban process and philosophy itself; should it follow a standards tier? Other OMs? A weird mix of both?
A Banning Philosophy for a Broken Meta
The best place to start is from the basics.
The main motivation is to try and keep as much in the tier as possible barring a few anomalies (how do we know what the anomalies are? See next section). This automatically removes the possibility of applying any of the arguments from standard tiers or other OMs into BH. Essentially, the "balanced" title is a misnomer; a truer name for BH is probably AEA - "Almost Everything Allowed", a tier where conventionally 'broken' things stay in the same space and check each other. The central identity is therefore inclusion of as much as possible in the games. Therefore, the banning philosophy can be summed as a 'Less is more' approach or..
It is important to note that nowhere in the definition is there a mention of having a "balanced" tier in terms of perfect harmony between offense, balance and stall (which in many cases is impossible, and would probably need another full length essay to have a meaning for anyway).Balanced Hackmons Central said:What is Balanced Hackmons?
From a technical standpoint, Balanced Hackmons is an Other Meta that allows you to use nearly anything possible that you can battle with in a link battle between players, in the most current cartridge.
Conceptually, BH is defined as a sandbox tier where one can use Pokemon to their fullest potential. Nearly any Pokemon can be used, with normal restrictions being removed; Megas and other formes can be used without any transformation or item. Pokemon can make use of nearly any move and ability in the game, instead of being limited to what they can legally have, and any item can be used.
What makes it "Balanced"?
The removal of abilities, moves or Pokemon that focus the meta only around their use.
The main motivation is to try and keep as much in the tier as possible barring a few anomalies (how do we know what the anomalies are? See next section). This automatically removes the possibility of applying any of the arguments from standard tiers or other OMs into BH. Essentially, the "balanced" title is a misnomer; a truer name for BH is probably AEA - "Almost Everything Allowed", a tier where conventionally 'broken' things stay in the same space and check each other. The central identity is therefore inclusion of as much as possible in the games. Therefore, the banning philosophy can be summed as a 'Less is more' approach or..
Examples in existing decisions: banning Wonder Guard, instead of banning all mons with specific types that are difficult to stop or with a certain BST, banning Primal Groudon, instead of banning several abilities that many mons can benefit from etc
I understand this is still somewhat vague - how do we know when clauses are too much, or that something is too generic? That's where the next section comes in which is the real guide on how to "prove" a mechanic is broken. The philosophy, as the name implies, is more of a thought process than something that has to be explicitly shown in an argument.
Ban Rhetoric Guide
To keep in the spirit of "least impact", I decided to make my own little outline of which mechanic should be focused on in what circumstances. Not only should this lower the ban statement to its simplest terms (e.g. instead of saying "ban poison heal on setup sweepers" to "ban Kyogre-Primal") but also it will bring to focus the right mechanic that needs to be banned (e.g. "ban Groudon-Primal" instead of "ban V-Create"). Arguments that are made for or against a ban should at least consider these points that are given below in their discussion points.
So let's get right to it; I have divided each discussion point to the specific mechanic below.
Pokemon Ban:
I decided to start with the big one first; a full Pokemon ban. Unheard of in the last generation, the sheer power creep and especially the addition of the EV limit really forced the community's collective hand. However, I want to keep this as a last resort option, similar to my predecessor and the last generation. Banning a Pokemon to me goes against the philosophy I mentioned above and the spirit of BH. Therefore, in my opinion, these are the following properties a Pokemon should have to be considered banworthy:
- Inherent/Natural Qualities:
- Pokemon should be considered first and foremost as a blank state with no ability or specific moveset. It should outshine every other Pokemon in the tier and be considered head and shoulders above them. A banworthy Pokemon would have high offensive and defensive stats, a great and balanced stat spread. This would set them apart from general extremes that do not warrant bans (from Deoxys-Attack to Shuckle to Blissey).
- In addition, their typing would grant both a great offensive STAB as well as uncommon or easy to patch weaknesses (e.g. by an ability), and also be neutral or resistant to common hazards
- Multidimensional and Unique Sets:
- Building off of our natural traits, we now get into the 'mon's experience "in the field."
- The inherent stat spread which leads to a great offensive and defensive prowess should logically allow the Pokemon to run many different sets and different roles, all of which vary from passable to dominant in the tier, whether defensive or offensive. This stops the Pokemon from being predictable. This again plays back into the battle of the extremes; it is just as unlikely to see Registeel being a nuke as having Gengar-Mega being your team's defensive anchor
- Despite this it is important to get past simply being the jack of all trades. This gets into the second part of the natural traits; there has to be a subset of the main sets that can be run on the 'mon that are unique to it, either from its STAB combination, defensive typing or more
- It is important to have both of these traits. Study Shedinja and Chansey with Imposter and its combination of HP and ability to hold Eviolite are unique threats, but are the definition of one-dimensional. Meanwhile, Arceus has one of the best evenly balanced stat spreads but fails to differentiate itself from the other 'mons that can run similar sets to an equally proficient to better degree.
- Centralization: Here we see the dreaded buzzword again but now it shall be built on the above two points. Centralization here would take everything that has been said above into account. In addition, it includes the following aspects:
- One of (or both):
- It would be disadvantageous to not use the Pokemon that is ban-worthy, to the point that it would be difficult to win a game regularly without it or
- While not using the 'mon itself, in an attempt to prepare for it, checks and counters are used that become completely insufficient, niche or uncommon to the point of forcing the decision to either prepare for the ban-worthy Pokemon uniquely or the rest of the usual threats of the tier, as decided by the community at the time. This can include roles, Pokemon, or specific moves as well. An example that does not meet this would be having trouble facing a set that can be run on many different 'mons such as Contrary. Again, this plays back into the multidimensional and unique aspect
- The Pokemon in question is able to excel in multiple and unique sets to the point that preparation for one leads to a loss against the other, or that a single counter, or multiple checks are insufficient in handling the Pokemon as a threat.
- One of (or both):
The power to set nearly any ability that a 'mon would prefer almost ideally, is the second most defining and important property of BH, so I will go through it next. Most of the logic will be similar to the above. An Ability should be considered for ban if:
- It can either provide an inherent skill that is so good that it can be slapped onto nearly any 'mon, regardless of role, stat spread or moveset. This is true with Shadow Tag and Wonder Guard, which can work on offensive and defensive Pokemon alike, and as Classic Hackmons have proven, can be run on any Pokemon, be it an LC mon or Rayquaza-Mega
- Or the ability can so augment the capabilities of the 'mon it is on that the set in question would be difficult or impossible to check or counter. This is similar to the last point on Pokemon ban above, but it is an important distinction, since this implies that the power originates from the ability and that the choice of 'mon, item and even moveset, is irrelevant. Pure Power/Huge Power and Parental Bond fall into this category
As you likely have guessed, the logic for a move ban will be similar to what I've given already. What makes a move ban-worthy would be:
- An attack that is overwhelmingly powerful to the point of there being no counters to it, or the counters are unreasonable to use, affect performance against the general meta (as decided by the players), niche or unusable.
- A move (attack or status) that removes the emphasis on skill, planning and preparation and moves the outcome to forces not in control of the player.
- The move can be run effectively without needing real synergy with the Pokemon itself, its ability, the rest of its moveset, item or any in-game condition.
- Chatter and Evasion raising moves all fall into the above points. Even OHKO moves, without No Guard, would still retain the second and third properties by being a luck-based game of 30% chance for a free KO, with little regard to in-game constraints.
While unprecedented and therefore difficult to make a guide for, I have included some initial thoughts about what would be needed to advocate an Item ban:
- Similar to the point in Ability above, the hypothetical ban-worthy item would greatly augment a mon's offensive or defensive capabilities, to the point of reducing the game to a simple "do you have the item or not" question. No item falls in this category yet, but in my opinion, it'd be something to the tune of an Eviolite that works with any Pokemon or a Life Orb with no drawbacks
- An item ban can also be considered if it allows Pokemon access to mechanics that have already been banned (see FAQ). Examples of this include Red Orb turning Groudon into Groudon-Primal, or Gengar receiving Shadow Tag through a manual Mega-Evolution. For this, the Pokemon with the item would have to be evaluated as if it were a new Pokemon ban, except the Ability and Item would obviously be preset.
Clauses should be reserved for complex cases where individual bans on any of the above would not successfully handle a ban-worthy strategy that is composed of several Pokemon, move(s), ability(ies) or any combination of them. Similar to everything covered so far, the strategy would have to be any or all of:
- So dominant that there would be little to no checks for it
- Remove the emphasis of the game from skill to outside forces such as luck or amount of time the battlers have (e.g. endless battle)
- The player is forced to choose between preparing for this specific strategy at the cost of facing the usual meta at the time (as determined by the player base)
The Endless Battle and Assist clauses are also good examples of why a clause may be needed (Assist extends beyond the move itself because the team has to follow a specific construction and there is no real counter for the move Assist in and of itself, but rather the whole strategy).
The exception that I shall keep, at this point in time, is that a clause will not be put for a complex situation that disallows specific Pokemon from having specific moves, items, abilities or any combination thereof, as I feel that it will open a rabbit-hole with no ending, with discussions on which Pokemon would need limiting, which sets should be considered, similarity of moves and so forth.
Conclusion
And that's it! Hopefully, I was able to cover most of what I have in mind from my side. I look forward to working with the community, which I myself am part of, in improving our meta! If there are any questions, refer to the FAQ, and if that is not sufficient, feel free to post your doubts in this thread or personally reach out to me.
Thanks
E4 Flint
Approved by The Immortal and Eevee General
The Immortal: "It is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen"
The Immortal: "It is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen"
Last edited: