Evasion Clause and Z-Moves

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Hi everyone. New to posting in Policy Review, but I don't know a better place to put this and people on Discord seemed to agree that this would be the right location.

This is a really minor detail, but I'm wondering if the ban on +1 Evasion Z-moves could be shifted from the teambuilder to an in-battle restriction of some sort.

The list of +1 Evasion Z-moves is as follows: Z-Camouflage, Z-Detect, Z-Flash, Z-Kinesis, Z-Lucky Chant, Z-Magnet Rise, Z-Sand Attack, Z-Smokescreen. Currently, these moves are banned in such a way that putting, for instance, in the most relevant example, Electrium Z and Magnet Rise on the same set will prevent it from being usable in any format with Evasion Clause implemented. This seems fine at first, but it completely prevents the use of a set like the following:

Magnezone @ Electrium Z
- Thunder
- Magnet Rise

The OU analysis has a set for Magnezone containing Magnet Rise, so this isn't all that farfetched, even if it seems suboptimal. A player might have legitimate reasons for wanting to use both Z-Thunder (Gigavolt Havoc) and regular Magnet Rise, but find themselves unable to, in spite of the fact that they could use such a set on cartridge, even playing with anti-evasion rules.

Another example:

Klinklang @ Electrium Z
- Wild Charge
- Magnet Rise

Last generation's Klinklang NU analysis listed Wild Charge in the "Moves" section of a set containing Magnet Rise, so this is perhaps even more reasonable. This generation, it might find itself using Electrium Z to defeat bulky Water-types. (Believe it or not, this is actually a set I wanted to use in the 1v1 OM, which was what prompted this post.)

Thus, I don't have a specific solution in mind, but maybe simply preventing users from clicking on Z-Magnet Rise with an in-battle explanation as to why would do the trick.

***

There's also a greater debate to be had about whether these +1 Evasion Z-moves that come at the cost of a Z-move slot should be allowed in standard formats, but I'm not here to start that conversation, unless people really want to talk about it. Just hoping to clean up some collateral damage.

EDIT: The discussion is underway. Seems people do want to talk about this, too. Fine by me.
 
Last edited:

Imanalt

I'm the coolest girl you'll ever meet
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#3
I would be moderately opposed to an in-battle clause.

Is there that much of a risk to a one-time +1 evasion at all? We might want to just unban those cases.
Why would you be opposed to an in-battle clause? Making the moves unclickable in battle doesn't stray from playability on cartridge, and as far as i can tell has both precedent (mega rayquaza), and no real downside. If people really want to "protect" people from their own stupidity just add a little message in teambuilder when you select what would be an illegal set that says "this set could have a z-move that is banned under evasion clause, you will be able to use this team but not use z-whatever." I get that this would add a little bit of work, but there is no other good solution to the problem.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#4
Why would you be opposed to an in-battle clause? Making the moves unclickable in battle doesn't stray from playability on cartridge, and as far as i can tell has both precedent (mega rayquaza), and no real downside.
Sleep Clause Mod is also precedent for modding the game, but we don't mod the game unless we have to.

Mega Rayquaza Clause isn't a mod, which I like, but it's still something you have to keep track of in-battle, and is also something I'd prefer not to do unless we have to.

If people really want to "protect" people from their own stupidity just add a little message in teambuilder when you select what would be an illegal set that says "this set could have a z-move that is banned under evasion clause, you will be able to use this team but not use z-whatever." I get that this would add a little bit of work, but there is no other good solution to the problem.
Yes, that is also a possibility. I would consider that if people have problems with unbanning Z-evasion.
 
Last edited:

dodmen

Ain't no tuition for havin' no ambition
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#5
I don't think Z Evasion moves need to be banned.
OU Tiering Policy said:
IV.) Probability management is a part of the game.
A.) This means we have to accept that moves have secondary effects, that moves can miss, that moves can critical hit, and that managing all these potential probability points is a part of skill.
B.) This does NOT mean that we will accept every probability factor introduced to the game. Evasion, OHKO, and Moody all affected the outcome "too much" and we removed them.
C.) "Too much" is if a particular factor has the more skilled player at a disadvantage a considerable amount of the time against a less skilled player, regardless of what he does. In relation to the latter part, "too much" also refers to factors that nearly completely take a game out of the player's hands and turn the PRIMARY point of the game to wait for the RNG.
1.) OHKO moves are an example of the "too much" portion. With a 30% success rate, the other player will be put in an immediate disadvantage by the OHKO move user a considerable amount of the time no matter what he does.
2.) Moody and SwagPlay are examples of the "taking the game out of a player's hands". Both turn the PRIMARY point of the game waiting to see what the RNG spits out.
Emphasis mine.

+1 Evasion doesn't have a really good success rate, and doesn't yield a ridiculous reward. +1 Evasion from Z moves can't stacked (limit is +1), can't be regained after switching out either, and costs a moveslot + item. Brightpowder's been legal forever, Sand/Hail + evasion ability has been legal for a couple gens, and the Z move mechanic isn't any more overwhelming than either of these. Unless we want to ban these other evasion elements, which I strongly believe we shouldn't, there's no need to ban any Z move evasion mechanics either.
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#6
Theres no need to ban Z evasion except I think for z evasion + baton pass, if anything even gets that.
 

Martin

Viability doesn’t exist
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor
Moderator
#8
Z-Evasion is still problematic when you actually consider what the moves which provide it are.

Looking at the list, we have the following:
  • Z-Camouflage
  • Z-Detect
  • Z-Flash
  • Z-Kinesis
  • Z-Lucky Chant
  • Z-Magnet Rise
  • Z-Sand Attack
  • Z-Smokescreen
Protection on the boosting turn
Reduces accuracy simultaniously


With Z-Detect, you remove one of the biggest issues of using Double Team (you don't risk taking damage on the boosting turn). This is pretty stupid on its own, but it is nothing compared to what we have in blue. What this functionally does is gives the user a Minimise boost (edit: just plugged Minimize into the formula; Z-Sand Attack is marginally better than Minimize as long as the accuracy drop is still in play) until their opponent switches out. To put this into context, an attack with 100% accuracy has a calculated accuracy as follows:

eqn3706.png


What this does is forces your opponent to switch out if they want to not have to hit ≤56.25% accurate attacks, and even after doing this they still have to deal with every attack having Focus Blast accuracy or less. To put this bluntly, it is not competitive at all, and it is not desirable to make any kind of exceptions to the rule for this reason.

Furthermore, consider the following potential sets:

Garchomp @ Groundium Z
Ability: Sand Veil
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Sand Attack
- Earthquake
- Outrage / Dragon Claw
- Swords Dance

Gliscor @ Groundium Z
Ability: Sand Veil
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Sand Attack
- Earthquake
- Swords Dance
- Fly / Knock Off / whatever

If sandstorm is active (not hard in a meta where Tyranitar, Hippowdon and Gigalith are all legal), what you functionally have in sand with these two sets is a Pokemon which turns a 100% accurate attack into the following:

Before accuracy reset:
eqn3707.png


After accuracy reset:
eqn3708.png


This is unhealthy as hell, and we shouldn't be offering players a method to easily turn every turn into a coin flip like this on a silver plate. People have topped the ladder using Sand Stream+Sand Veil teams in ORAS by falling back on free opportunities that are provided by Sand Veil (potentially alongside Bright Powder); now imagine that if it were on steroids and you get this.

===========

Personally I think that an in-battle clause is appropriate here; the only reason to try and use Z-Magnet Rise or whatever is to attempt to cheese for evasion, but you shouldn't need to be restricted from running Gigavolt Havoc (a legitimate, totally competitive option) on a set just because it happens to carry Magnet Rise. It is possible to implement a Z-Evasion clause on cartridge by just having the user forfeit the game if they use the crystal on Magnet Rise in the same way that any player who reveals Double Team or Minimize or any player who puts two opponents to sleep would forfeit the game. Just block out its usage in battle and be done with it, or alternatively have a confirmation pop-up appear on the first game of a session using a team with it on that gives unaware players the option to replace it if they were using it with cheesing in mind and the proceed to block it out in-battle.
 
#10
I disagree with the in-battle clause. If the aforementioned evasion stacking is the problem, then why should Sand Attack (and Sand Veil, to a lesser degree) remain legal? Sand Attack contributes as much to the accuracy modifier and also has no real use outside of evasion abuse. If the issue here is RNG abuse, then why not target all elements that contribute?

Before resorting to a messy in-battle clause, I'd rather one of the following approaches be adopted:

1. Ban Sand Attack (and Flash, etc.) and/or Sand Veil, and undo the complex Z-item + move ban. This prevents the allegedly problematic .45 accuracy modifier scenario from occurring, as the sets in question will only have access to one evasion-boosting method. The justification behind this ban is that there is no reason to use Sand Attack and/or Sand Veil outside of "anti-competitive" evasion cheese.

2. Remove the complex Z-item + move ban and leave everything else untouched. I'm skeptical that this evasion stacking strategy is actually competitively viable between all the set-up it takes and everything in the current metagame that troubles a two-move coverage Garchomp.

3. Leave everything as is. I don't care about collateral damage, but even if I did, none of it here is actually relevant to OU. That Magnezone set might be the only example, and even then, it's an extremely niche option that I doubt would see much use even if it were legal.
 
#11
I'm just wondering, are there any practical examples of how z-evasion moves are actually causing issues in battles?
I know that this thread wanted to discuss z-evasion moves more on a consistency perspective due to current evasion clause, but, is collateral damage worth of the in-battle clause?
I believe that, before doing anything, there should be a problem in the first place, and I actually don't see one. Can you use a move that boosts evasion even though evasion clause is active? Ok good, but you have to waste your z-move and use not-viable-at-all moves, so good luck with it! Why isn't acupressure banned then? It can boost evasion too.. if you even have the time to get the right boost without getting stomped. The same can be said about so-called "hax items".. should they be banned then?
I just guess that non-issues should have non-solutions so keeping the status quo would be fine, unless an actual issue comes up.
 
#12
I'm just wondering, but are there any practical examples of how z-evasion moves are actually causing issues in battles?
I know that this thread wanted to discuss z-evasion moves more on a consistency perspective due to current evasion clause, but, is collateral damage worth of the in-battle clause?
Z-evasion moves are currently banned, so of course there are no examples of them actually causing issues in battles. You cannot currently "use a move that boosts evasion even though evasion clause is active." In fact, my goal in starting this thread was to point out that there are moves that don't boost evasion that you can't use because evasion clause is active.

I really don't see why an in-battle clause is being treated as a significant alteration to our current policy when all it does is more specifically apply the rule that we're supposed to have in the first place and there's precedent for it in Ubers.

I believe that, before doing anything, there should be a problem in the first place, and I actually don't see one. Can you use a move that boosts evasion even though evasion clause is active? Ok good, but you have to waste your z-move and use not-viable-at-all moves, so good luck with it! Why isn't acupressure banned then? It can boost evasion too.. if you even have the time to get the right boost without getting stomped. The same can be said about so-called "hax items".. should they be banned then?
I just guess that non-issues should have non-solutions so keeping the status quo would be fine, unless an actual issue comes up.
I can't tell for sure but it seems like the point you are making here is that Z-evasion moves should be unbanned (?) because they are similar to Acupressure and "hax items." This is actually a change in the Evasion Clause policy established at the start of the generation and represents a move further away from the "status quo."
 
#13
Z-evasion moves are currently banned, so of course there are no examples of them actually causing issues in battles. You cannot currently "use a move that boosts evasion even though evasion clause is active." In fact, my goal in starting this thread was to point out that there are moves that don't boost evasion that you can't use because evasion clause is active.

I really don't see why an in-battle clause is being treated as a significant alteration to our current policy when all it does is more specifically apply the rule that we're supposed to have in the first place and there's precedent for it in Ubers.



I can't tell for sure but it seems like the point you are making here is that Z-evasion moves should be unbanned (?) because they are similar to Acupressure and "hax items." This is actually a change in the Evasion Clause policy established at the start of the generation and represents a move further away from the "status quo."
oh my bad the following replies from OP talking about "Z-evasion moves shouldnt be banned" have confused me X_X
then I would go either for Z-Evasion unban, or a complete evasion clause implying any move/ability/item that has even a little % of boosting evasion, but this has little to do with the in-battle clause requested on the OP
 

Punchshroom

Paralysis is slightly less of a devil
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
#14
As far as I know, the Evasion Clause applies for moves that can be spammed to continually boost evasion, which is why Double Team and Minimize are banned. I really doubt the evasion-boosting Z-moves fall into this category, like how the evasion-boosting abilities (Snow Cloak and Sand Veil) and items (Brightpowder and Lax Incense; yes I know they lower accuracy, but the effect stays with the Pokemon regardless of switches so it is effectively an evasion boost bar against Keen Eye) do not. From what I can tell here, the evasion-boosting Z-moves only really start introducing a significant amount of luck if they are combined with the accuracy-lowering move combined with the evasion ability.

Aside from Garchomp and Gliscor, there are other examples like Sand Attack Sandslash / Cacturne / Dugtrio (lol) / Palossand, Flash Heliolisk / Stunfisk, Flash Froslass, and Sand Attack Glaceon. Discounting the accuracy-lowering moves, there are Z-Camouflage Heliolisk & Stunfisk, Z-Magnet Rise Heliolisk & Stunfisk, Z-Magnet Rise Vanilluxe, and Z-Detect Glaceon for the list of Z-evasion + evasion ability Pokemon, which can turn a 100% accurate move down to 60%, equivalent to that of a Minimize, which I can only assume you guys also do not want to be permitted in the meta. With that said:


What this does is forces your opponent to switch out if they want to not have to hit ≤56.25% accurate attacks, and even after doing this they still have to deal with every attack having Focus Blast accuracy or less. To put this bluntly, it is not competitive at all, and it is not desirable to make any kind of exceptions to the rule for this reason.
These are the odds Martin calculated for Z-evasion + accuracy lowering, but these are also the odds for a accuracy-lowering mon with an evasion ability (non-Z Sand Attack + Sand Veil Chomp, non-Z Flash + Snow Cloak Froslass), except these Pokemon can further decrease their chances of getting hit, which is currently allowed. This means there are several nuances of this combination that need to be looked at to truly determine what is significantly uncompetitive here.

Do we need to address:
a) Z-accuracy-lowering and evasion ability (ex: Z-Sand Attack Chomp, Z-Flash Froslass)
b) Z-evasion and evasion ability (ex: Z-Magnet Rise Heliolisk, Z-Detect Glaceon)
c) accuracy-lowering and evasion ability (Sand Attack Chomp, Flash Froslass) (*can also afford Brightpowder / Lax Incense)
d) Z-accuracy-lowering (Z-Sand Attack, Z-Flash, Z-Kinesis, Z-Smokescreen)

If you ask me, I don't see the Z-evasion moves alone complying with the Evasion Clause in the first place (I see case c) as being far more of a problem than it anyway), and the core problem stems from either a combination of Z-accuracy-lowering (which boosts evasion by default), Z-evasion + evasion ability, or all three. Basically this is similar to the 'Endless Battle Clause' situation again, but unlike Leppa Berry, the bud can't simply be nipped by banning the combination of the Z-Crystal + the move as it can cripple legitimate combinations.

The first problem we'd have to look at is d), since it applies to a lot more Pokemon than the other cases. Aside from the talked about "in-battle clause", we can also just complex ban the Z-accuracy lowering moves off the get-go, which is a big part of what Martin considers and covers cases d) and a). Banning Z-accuracy lowering moves remove the most uncompetitive aspect of this combination with pretty much no collateral, but Z-evasion moves like Z-Magnet Rise and Z-Detect would not be touched, and the arguable problem of Z-evasion + ability persists.

As I mentioned earlier, Z-evasion moves by themselves don't seem to pose any more of an issue than the presence of Brightpowder & Lax Incense; sure it provides more of an evasion boost (75% hit rate vs 90% hit rate), but both a move, a turn and the Z-slot must be spent, plus the boost is forever lost if switched, unlike Brightpowder & Lax Incense, meaning the opportunity cost seems to more than balance this out. As for Z-evasion + evasion ability, while the ability for the abusers to maintain a 60% hit rate certainly don't look pretty, but if accuracy-lowering + Brightpowder + evasion ability mons, which have a comparatively low 67.5% hit rate and the capacity to reduce it further (unlike Z-evasion) are allowed, I don't see why Z-Evasion should be excluded in this sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr: Z-Evasion moves aren't the problem here, especially if we tolerated accuracy lowering + evasion item + evasion ability; the problem is Z-accuracy lowering moves, which can just be banned right away without the need for an in-battle clause.
 
Last edited:
#15
I was just reminded of this thread, and I don't see why this isn't a thing. I could understand not wanting to clause it out, because clauses like that are apparently a big deal, but I can't think of a single one of these Z-Evasion moves that would be an issue:
  • Z-Camouflage
  • Z-Detect
  • Z-Flash
  • Z-Kinesis
  • Z-Lucky Chant
  • Z-Magnet Rise
  • Z-Sand Attack
  • Z-Smokescreen
None of these are used in standard bar barely magnet rise, and no relevant user of magnet rise would want to use its Zmove for evasion under ordinary circumstances. Given that we allow brightpowder as an unviable and acceptable item Slot-Evasion tradeoff, there's precedent that low levels of evasion is not neccesarily problematic. Unless I'm missing something huge, spendng an item slot+A moveslot+A turn for a 33% evasion seems roughly comparable to item slot only constant 10%; under pretty much no normal circumstance would either be useful or worthwhile; the most comparable strategy, Sand Veil+Brightpowder (66.6 vs. 72) sees basically no use, and it can be used multiple times and is affected on the switch and doesn't need a turn with sand stream. Is there any reason to beleive that this strategy would be any more useful or uncompetative, given that it falls outside the framework laid down here:
IV.) Probability management is a part of the game.
A.) This means we have to accept that moves have secondary effects, that moves can miss, that moves can critical hit, and that managing all these potential probability points is a part of skill.
B.) This does NOT mean that we will accept every probability factor introduced to the game. Evasion, OHKO, and Moody all affected the outcome "too much" and we removed them.
C.) "Too much" is if a particular factor has the more skilled player at a disadvantage a considerable amount of the time against a less skilled player, regardless of what he does. In relation to the latter part, "too much" also refers to factors that nearly completely take a game out of the player's hands and turn the PRIMARY point of the game to wait for the RNG.
1.) OHKO moves are an example of the "too much" portion. With a 30% success rate, the other player will be put in an immediate disadvantage by the OHKO move user a considerable amount of the time no matter what he does.
2.) Moody and SwagPlay are examples of the "taking the game out of a player's hands". Both turn the PRIMARY point of the game waiting to see what the RNG spits out.
Why should we not accept this to free a competative element when we accept similar things for no reason?
 

Martin

Viability doesn’t exist
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor
Moderator
#16
Uh yeah bumping this because I just got my team rejected because it carried Gigavolt+Magnet Rise Klinklang–a legitimate set which is used to break through Slowbro without sacrificing the ability to set up on and break through healthy Rhydon/Piloswine etc. I still stand by my statement from last March that there should be an in-battle clause on Z-evasion although I wouldn't really be hugely opposed to banning Sand Attack etc. and excluding Z moves from evasion clause either 'cuz they are inherently rather uncompetitive moves anyway; while back then it was kinda a speculative thing, it is a relevant thing now that has an impact on the way that we can build teams in NU, and as such it should be addressed sooner rather than later IMO.
 

UltiMario

Out of Obscurity
is a Pokemon Researcher
#17
Honestly, I think the Evasion clause is arbitrarily done enough right now to consider a restructure in order to make it clear what the goal and the spirit of the clause is. The current implementation banning the +evasion Z-Moves or not arbitrarily is just pointlessly complex, and we should just boil it down to an easier to explain purpose. This is something that's been done before- simplify clauses rather than convoluting them.

So I'd suggest the following definition of the Evasion Clause for Gen 7 onward:
• Reduce randomness in games by banning all effects that can consistently and single-handedly reduce hit chance by more than a single stage (25%) over any amount of turns in a game.

"Consistently" in this context is going to mean "Over 50%" for the sake of argument.

There might be a slightly better way to word that, but I think it's got the bases covered. Double Team, for example, can boost to two stages of Evasion over two turns, and it's banned. Sand Veil doesn't boost past the accuracy modifier of a single stage, so it's not. Accupressure and Octzooka can't increase Evasion or lower accuracy more than 50% of the time, so they stay unbanned. We don't actually have a Pokemon that has Serene Grace acc drop moves yet, but: Serene Grace Octzooka would have 100% Acc drop, but that's not done "single-handedly" by the move, so Octzooka wouldn't get banned.

However, this comes with the following changes:
• The following moves are now banned: Flash, Mud Slap, Sand Attack, Smokescreen, and Kinesis.
Z-Evasion moves are unbanned, since they can't modify the hit chance by more than 25%, as Accuracy moves have been banned.

Obviously this would only apply in current generations forward, where Z-Moves complicate and cause arbitrary exceptions in the clause, and not in older gens where evasion abilities are more problematic with infinite weather.

This is just me spitballing an idea, but I prefer this graceful restructure over just arbitrarily choosing what's in the Evasion Clause and what is not. I think this variant of the clause stays true to both the purpose and spirit of the clause, and it makes a pretty cut-and-dry guideline of what should and shouldn't be banned in the clause whenever a new Generation of games comes out, and obviously can be revisited if there's another issue.
 
Last edited:

Hikari

is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Tiering Admin
#18
Your proposal is the definition of arbitrary. Banning things that are legal without causing any problem just to unban Z-evasion moves isn't any better than what we have right now; you are pretty much trading 5 regular moves for 4 z-moves ( Z-Camouflage, Z-Detect, Z-Lucky Chat, Z-Magnet Rise). Changing a definition to include vague "randomness" and "consistently" just to be able to use Z Magnet Rise isn't a solution.

Changing the wording to

"A player cannot increase their Pokémon's evasion stat with a move that solely increases evasion. Items or indirect boosts do not break this clause."

Or going back to the old definition

"Players cannot use Double Team or Minimize in any of their Pokémon's movesets."

Fixes the problem and doesn't arbitrarily ban moves that were never tested. Z-Evasion aren't remotely close to being the same as Double Team or Minimize.
 

UltiMario

Out of Obscurity
is a Pokemon Researcher
#19
I'd definitely agree with that proposition, but earlier responses in the thread indicate that there's some hesitation in unbanning options like Z-Sand Attack due to its unhealthy nature. I simply suggested a clause that was consistent with the concerns other members were showing in the thread. This discussion was entirely brought back to light because people were unhappy with the current implementation, and I tried to make a suggestion that catered to the concerns of the entirety of the current discussion.

Personally, I think the possibility that something like Z-Sand Attack Veil Chomp potentially causing major issues is pretty unlikely, but the concerns that it could are not entirely unwarranted, because oldgens have had issues with this exact same thing before with Sand Veil abusers. Z-Sand Attack Chomp can boost itself to (effectively) +4 Evasion in a single turn, where Z-Magnet Rise obviously poses zero threat to the metagame as far as Evasion is concerned. Trying to mesh the discussed desirability of Z-Magnet Rise with the discussed undesirability of giving a Pokemon access to +4 Evasion was the goal of my suggestion, while additionally trying to remain completely consistent across the definition for all moves/abilities in the game. I hope that clarifies how it wasn't entirely arbitrary.

Of course, if we instead say we're okay with Garchomp and friends having access to a one-time double minimize, then again, I agree with just reducing Evasion Clause to Double Team and Minimize is a way better solution.
 

Martin

Viability doesn’t exist
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor
Moderator
#20
Why can’t we just have an in-battle clause that means these moves can’t be used in battle? Considering that we already have implementation for clauses that rely on a gentleman’s agreement in cart play (see: Sleep Clause), it isn’t exactly like it’s inconsistent with our current ruleset, and it’s not like it’s hard to explain either. People act as if it’s “messy” to have in-battle clauses despite the fact that it really isn’t (seriously the only way it’s “messy” is if you assume players lack basic reading comprehension), and it’s actively less complex/messy than BW DrizzleSwim (or WeatherSpeed or whatever the fuck ppl call it now) because it still falls under the definition of the existing evasion clause and is about as easy (if not easier) to understand to boot while also having prior precedents in place before it was implemented (unlike DrizzleSwim).
 
Last edited:

Eien

Heart of Hearts
is a member of the Site Staffis a Community Leaderis a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator
Monotype Leader
#21
I was the one that originally proposed this ban specifically for SM Monotype back in November 2016 and implemented it on PS. When I added it for Monotype, I was told to add it for everyone because it was a bug, and I guess here we are at the PR thread, so I'll comment on why we banned them to begin with. Sorry I didn't post earlier; I thought things were decided back in March (see: Zarel's post).

When we pushed for this ban, Monotype still allowed the use of Baton Pass, so it was possible to Baton Pass evasion through this method. The Baton Pass Clause of the time allowed evasion passing along with anything else other than Speed, as it counted as just another kind of stat. So yes, while giving up a Z-Move and a move on one of your Pokemon is a huge cost, if you could Baton Pass it and a Substitute, then it was very worth it. Z-Evasion Baton Pass strategies were actually used quite a bit before we banned it to our horror. For example, Umbreon would use Detect, Substitute, and Baton Pass, which was a legitimate way to pass evasion to stallbreakers and wallbreakers like Calm Mind Mega Sableye, Hoopa-U, and Ash-Greninja. Another example of Pokemon that used this strategy included Zapdos using Z-Detect, praying to luck to get a Substitute up, and then passing +1 evasion to a Poison Heal SubTect Gliscor. It was very clear to us that a +1 evasion SubTect Gliscor was uncompetitive and needed to be quickbanned as soon as possible. Because there were many other evasion passers and non-Baton Pass strategies, we went forward with banning Z-Evasion altogether.

If the other tiers want to drop Z-Evasion from the global Evasion Clause now, I'm fine with it because Baton Pass is now banned and the Z-Evasion ban was meant to be specific to Monotype in the beginning anyway. When we chose to ban these moves, we were primarily experimenting and concerned with Baton Passing evasion as opposed to using it directly for reasons already explained in this thread. Early SM, Z-Moves were still being explored, and we know a lot more about how to use them effectively now than we did before, although I'm not completely convinced these strategies wouldn't be used at all. The Monotype banlist does tend to stray from usage-based tiers' banlists, so I wouldn't want to impose our decisions upon others if they feel it is unnecessary for their own tiers. If Z-Evasion still poses a problem for us (Monotype) like it once did, then we can tier that ourselves like we do everything else.

P.S. for the curious as to what non-Baton Pass strategies we did experiment with:
The main one involved Speed Boost Yanmega, which usually uses Protect to to gain one boost in Speed right off the bat. Instead of using Protect, they could use Z-Detect to gain both Speed and evasion in one turn. I don't know what tier Yanmega is in or how that tier works right now, but it was a pretty big pain in Monotype at the time.

We did also test a variant on the Sand Veil strategy described above with Snow Cloak with the support of Aurora Veil from Alolan Ninetales. I don't remember Z-Evasion being tested with Sand Veil.
 

Hikari

is a Tournament Directoris a member of the Site Staffis a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
Tiering Admin
#22
I'd definitely agree with that proposition, but earlier responses in the thread indicate that there's some hesitation in unbanning options like Z-Sand Attack due to its unhealthy nature. I simply suggested a clause that was consistent with the concerns other members were showing in the thread. This discussion was entirely brought back to light because people were unhappy with the current implementation, and I tried to make a suggestion that catered to the concerns of the entirety of the current discussion.

Personally, I think the possibility that something like Z-Sand Attack Veil Chomp potentially causing major issues is pretty unlikely, but the concerns that it could are not entirely unwarranted, because oldgens have had issues with this exact same thing before with Sand Veil abusers. Z-Sand Attack Chomp can boost itself to (effectively) +4 Evasion in a single turn, where Z-Magnet Rise obviously poses zero threat to the metagame as far as Evasion is concerned. Trying to mesh the discussed desirability of Z-Magnet Rise with the discussed undesirability of giving a Pokemon access to +4 Evasion was the goal of my suggestion, while additionally trying to remain completely consistent across the definition for all moves/abilities in the game. I hope that clarifies how it wasn't entirely arbitrary.

Of course, if we instead say we're okay with Garchomp and friends having access to a one-time double minimize, then again, I agree with just reducing Evasion Clause to Double Team and Minimize is a way better solution.
The "effectively +4 Evasion in a single turn" ignores context. You need a Garchomp with Z-Sand Attack, which is not only considered a subpar Pokemon right now but it also is going to be forced into running Sand Attack / Sword Dance / Move 1 / Move 2; no Substitute, limited coverage. If you aren't running Smooth Rock, which cripples your Tyranitar, you have 3 turns to setup Z Sand Attack and Sword Dance assuming you manage to directly switch in. Your Garchomp's "+4 Evasion" turns into "+2 Evasion" a turn after setting up to +2 Attack, if your opponent switches you are at +1 Evasion with a two attacks Garchomp with no boosting item.

The scenarios are so convoluted and specific, and to make them happen you have make some major team sacrifices. I don't doubt it's possible to pull them off, but it seems very unlikely they'll be anywhere near reliable and it's not like we can know because they were never tested appropriately (outside of Monotype when Baton Pass was allowed). If introducing luck into the metagame was enough to justify a ban, Swagger and Dynamic Punch would be banned.

Why can’t we just have an in-battle clause that means these moves can’t be used in battle? Considering that we already have implementation for clauses that rely on a gentleman’s agreement in cart play (see: Sleep Clause), it isn’t exactly like it’s inconsistent with our current ruleset, and it’s not like it’s hard to explain either. People act as if it’s “messy” to have in-battle clauses despite the fact that it really isn’t (seriously the only way it’s “messy” is if you assume players lack basic reading comprehension), and it’s actively less complex/messy than BW DrizzleSwim (or WeatherSpeed or whatever the fuck ppl call it now) because it still falls under the definition of the existing evasion clause and is about as easy (if not easier) to understand to boot while also having prior precedents in place before it was implemented (unlike DrizzleSwim).
Because it's a completely unnecessary change that ignores the core issue. This isn't comparable to Sleep Clause, let alone the extremely controversial BW complex bans.
 
#23
I think z-evasion moves should be allowed from a PU perspective. The amount of restrictions using a z-move gives is more than enough to make them fine and a subpar choice even compared to Brightpowder and accuracy lowering moves.

The lack of Leftovers and BP clause stops Substitute/BP shenanigans and the opportunity cost is just so huge since you can't use other z-moves on your team. In addition to that the moves you need to run to take advantage of it are not competitive (except Magnet Rise which is still a niche option).

I could see some Simple users be annoying with them but those rend to be bad/irrelevant even in PU. [it doesn't actually work]

On the other hand the positives of this unban are minuscule too but i'd still say we should allow them like we do with Swagger for example
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)