Moody

[Adonzo]

Until such time that GF wises up and removes the evasion boosts from Moody (probability: extremely low), or comes up with more effective counters to evasion boosting (stronger, more widespread perfect acc moves, for example), it will always be broken.

 

[SomeoneStoleTheNameIWant]

Plus, Moody gives people a reason to use the Bidoof line in all tiers, including OU and Ubers.

Fuck Bidoof.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Maybe, but is it broken? BombKirby mentioned another answer to sub/protect stalling with infiltrator. Now we have two lovely ways of stopping moody. Not to mention Mega Kangaskhan who can hit twice to break the sub first and then break the pokemon second.

Moody isn't banned under being broken-- like all evasion clause restrictions, it's banned under being uncompetitive. Actual win % with moody is irrelevant to its ban status.

 

[Upside]

If Moody is banned because of evasion then the Acupressure should be banned also, same random stat boosts including evasion.

I think the issue is only partially evasion-- the "free boosts all the damn time" is the main problem.

Acupressure actually forces you to use a move, essentially wasting a turn if nothing good gets boosted. Moody is a passive effect that happens every turn, so it's easily abusable with Protect/Sub spamming.

Moody isn't banned under being broken-- like all evasion clause restrictions, it's banned under being uncompetitive. Actual win % with moody is irrelevant to its ban status.

I would just like to point out that no one has actually addressed the legitimate argument that Martingale brought up.
(1) If Moody is banned entirely for being uncompetitive in that it can boost evasion, then Accupressure should be banned on the same grounds.
(2) Accupressure is not currently banned.
(-) There is some component, however small, of Moody beyond the fact that it can boost evasion that contributed to its being banned.

I'm not actually of the opinion the Moody should be "legalized" as it were. My point is essentially that this wave of posts saying that Moody is and will always be banned solely because of evasion clause is ignoring this point. The intuitive answer seems to be that Moody is uncompetitive because it is a way of effectively boosting evasion.

So the next logical question is what does "evasion clause" mean. Possible options:
(a) Evasion clause bans a selection of moves that boost evasion effectively (This is how it is expressed in the smogon rule) -- Conclusion: Moody is not on this list, so it is not effected by evasion clause at all. The posts that Moody is and will always be banned under evasion clause don't go deep enough into the issue, and this topic can actually warrant discussion about what degree of "uncompetitiveness" makes something ban-worthy
(b) Evasion clause bans all abilities/moves/etc. that can possibly raise evasion (What it appears many people think evasion clause does) -- Conclusion: Moody is banned under evasion clause. Accupressure should be banned under evasion clause.
(c) Evasion clase bans all abilities/move/etc. that can raise evasion in an uncompetitive way (What appears to be the actual philosophy behind the smogon rule) -- Conclusion: Moody is subjectively banned by Smogon and a discussion on to what degree it is uncompetitive is perfectly legitimate.

Either way, the request for the thread to be locked are entirely unwarranted. Also, the response so far have failed to address the core of this question: What is evasion clause? What should evasion clause be?

 

[Skyblade12]

And the core point of Evasion is: It's a strategy based around luck. Smogon hates luck-based strategies because they don't involve skill. If you use Flamethrower over Fire Blast, you're knowingly giving up OHKOs or greater damage for a slightly weaker, but more reliable attack. Swift, Shadow Punch, whatever are so weak they're hilarious. The only mons that run them are those that have no other usable move, like Shadow Punch for Golurk.

This is a valid point, but how does it differ from Focus Blast being a strategy based around luck? With that power and coverage, it usually nets OHKOs or 2HKOs whenever it is used. Yet, for it to succeed, it needs to hit. This is entirely luck based. If you hit, you get a KO, if you miss, you don't. There is no "strategy" or "skill" involved. Since we're already basing the metagame so highly around luck anyway, why is Evasion-based luck frowned upon?

I don't actually have a problem with the Evasion clause. I actually just hate the metagame's over-dependance on the unreliably accurate moves. Largely because it does boil so many of the situations down to luck. When my Air Slash misses twice in a row (and it happens, and has happened quite a lot to me, especially in X/Y, despite the "95%" accuracy), I lose two turns and usually have fallen so far behind that I don't have a chance of making it up. Yet, if I run moves like Flamethrower for the accuracy boost, I suddenly have a team that's considered unviable on a competitive level due to not running the higher power moves and losing OHKOs. And, when I win a battle due to an opponent's lower accuracy moves missing, I'm told that I'm winning due to "hax".

Now, let's say we allow in a single-stage evasion boost. Fire Blast becomes, what, a 65% base accuracy move (honestly not sure, I get confused by the evasion/accuracy calculations)? That makes it only slightly less accurate than Focus Blast. But suddenly, running it when you have Flamethrower becomes a much more serious question, because, in addition to Flamethrower's already greater reliability, it also sustains higher accuracy longer against an Evasive target.

If "luck-based" is banned, why are moves with below 100 accuracy allowed at all? Because they make the game just as luck-based as any evasion-based strategy. When an opponent wins or loses based on whether or not a move hits, that means that victory is luck based. And since 98% of the metagame runs moves with below 100 accuracy, that means that the majority of victories are luck based.

Heck, why is Para-Fliching or Para-Fusion allowed? That's completely luck based as well.




Sorry, I've dragged this a bit off topic. Moody is fairly easy to understand why it is banned. Heck, even without the "random" aspect (remove the ability to boost Evasion/Accuracy, and run it so it boosts and decreases stats in a fixed order), it would probably be banned. We've seen what happens to a Speed Boost Pokémon due to the power it gets, especially with how easy it is to Sub/Protect to get the boosts, and to Baton Pass them off. Let's say that Moody was fixed, boosting stats in a particular order, and cycling through them all over the course of 5 turns. You're still looking at a Speed Boost equivalent for each stat. A boosting move of that power, especially since it strikes a 2-stage boost each turn (it reduces another stat, sure, but depending on the stat and the Pokémon, that is rather irrelevant. A wall could ignore lowered Attack for boosted Defense any day, and just wait for the list to cycle back around to boost its offenses), is a fairly massive and probably uncompetitive advantage any way you look at it, even if most of the Pokémon that get it aren't exactly prime contenders in the metagame.

Does Acupressure deserve to be looked at for it's luck-basis as well?

 

[Impy]

No, it doesn't, because Acupressure requires you to use a move and put yourself at risk of damage. With Moody you can just spam sub/protect and win.

 

[kefkakrazy]

Using Moody and stalling till Evasion boosts kick in? NOT FUN AT ALL and the only 100% accuracy move that is usable is Roserade's Techinician Magical Leaf.

Devil's Advocate mode engaged:

Thunder in rain and Blizzard in hail are perfect accuracy.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I would just like to point out that no one has actually addressed the legitimate argument that Martingale brought up.
(1) If Moody is banned entirely for being uncompetitive in that it can boost evasion, then Accupressure should be banned on the same grounds.
(2) Accupressure is not currently banned.
(-) There is some component, however small, of Moody beyond the fact that it can boost evasion that contributed to its being banned.

I'm not actually of the opinion the Moody should be "legalized" as it were. My point is essentially that this wave of posts saying that Moody is and will always be banned solely because of evasion clause is ignoring this point. The intuitive answer seems to be that Moody is uncompetitive because it is a way of effectively boosting evasion.

So the next logical question is what does "evasion clause" mean. Possible options:
(a) Evasion clause bans a selection of moves that boost evasion effectively (This is how it is expressed in the smogon rule) -- Conclusion: Moody is not on this list, so it is not effected by evasion clause at all. The posts that Moody is and will always be banned under evasion clause don't go deep enough into the issue, and this topic can actually warrant discussion about what degree of "uncompetitiveness" makes something ban-worthy
(b) Evasion clause bans all abilities/moves/etc. that can possibly raise evasion (What it appears many people think evasion clause does) -- Conclusion: Moody is banned under evasion clause. Accupressure should be banned under evasion clause.
(c) Evasion clase bans all abilities/move/etc. that can raise evasion in an uncompetitive way (What appears to be the actual philosophy behind the smogon rule) -- Conclusion: Moody is subjectively banned by Smogon and a discussion on to what degree it is uncompetitive is perfectly legitimate.

Either way, the request for the thread to be locked are entirely unwarranted. Also, the response so far have failed to address the core of this question: What is evasion clause? What should evasion clause be?

Moody is not banned under evasion clause. It has its own clause/ban. The point is simply that like evasion clause (and also like DPP Wobbuffet, DPP Shaymin-S) Moody is banned for uncompetitive reasons, not broken ones.

Pokemon, moves, items, etc. are banned under uncompetitive clauses because they detract from the skill of the game, and cause decisions to be greatly taken out of the hands of the players. Notice the word greatly.

As you pointed out, there is a degree-- just like broken pokemon have to truly be over-powering, things banned under uncompetitive clauses also have to have a degree to which they take the decisions/play out of the hands of the player. That's why for uncompetitive bans, just like broken bans, there are sometimes needs for tests (though much less so, since we are much less tolerant of uncompetitive game aspects than overly strong Pokemon).

For instance, items like Quick Claw or King's Rock could be said to have uncompetitive aspects to them, however we haven't banned them simply because they don't have enough of an effect on the game to merit a ban. Similarly, Machamp and Jirachi can cause a lot of chaos with their haxing, but both Pokemon have yet to be deemed to have too great of an impact in game mechanics to merit a ban (neither of these are at DPP Wobbuffet's level or Mega Gengar's level in other words).

As you pointed out, Accupressure likewise has too little effect on games to yet merit an uncompetitive ban.

That's also why I at least have abstained from locking this thread-- because phazing ignoring evasion does mean a lot less influence of moody on the game, lessening its degree of uncompetitiveness.

However, as stated-- we are MUCH LESS tolerant of uncompetitive game aspects, and the onus is on the pro-moody side to make an intelligible argument as to why we should even consider something as ridiculous as Moody.

 

[ryan]

This is a valid point, but how does it differ from Focus Blast being a strategy based around luck? With that power and coverage, it usually nets OHKOs or 2HKOs whenever it is used. Yet, for it to succeed, it needs to hit. This is entirely luck based. If you hit, you get a KO, if you miss, you don't. There is no "strategy" or "skill" involved. Since we're already basing the metagame so highly around luck anyway, why is Evasion-based luck frowned upon?

Heck, why is Para-Fliching or Para-Fusion allowed? That's completely luck based as well.

Does Acupressure deserve to be looked at for it's luck-basis as well?

The difference between using Focus Blast and the opponent using evasion moves and Pokemon with Moody is that when you use moves with lowered accuracy, you're taking a risk of losing because they don't hit. On the other hand, when an opponent uses evasion moves or a Pokemon with Moody, RNG rolls are entirely out of your control. This is really obvious.

Paraflinch and parafusion strategies, unlike Moody, are not passive. What I mean is that you have to use moves that paralyze, confuse, and flinch in order to get the advantage off of them, and in that time, the opponent could be gaining the overall advantage by setting up hazards or setting up for a sweep or any number of things really. Meanwhile, when you're facing a Pokemon with Moody, the best you can do is try to attack them and hope you hit and/or break their Substitute after enough evasion and Def/SpDef boosts.

The Acupressure comparison is frankly mostly irrelevant. There's a reason why no one uses Acupressure: it's awful. It's not a method of passively boosting, which means that the opponent can again do any number of things while you attempt to set up, and you've got a 2/7 chance of getting something that could actually benefit you in continuing to set up (the relevant defensive stat depending on what you're facing and evasion). Come back to me when you've beaten multiple competent players with Acupressure, and I'll begin to consider taking this argument seriously.

 

[Boorego]

The whirlwind/roar buff doesn't even really help with checking moody that much considering that glalie/smeargle (the two best moody abusers) will just taunt you and prevent the phazing anyway.

 

[sidakarya]

I've recently had the pleasure of facing Moody Smeargle + Espeon on random Wi-fi. Most horrible, rage-inducing experience ever, and this was when I was running Mega Absol to thwart hax nonsense like swagkey.

I really would not like to repeat that experience in this metagame, thank you.

 

[Upside]

Moody is not banned under evasion clause. It has its own clause/ban. The point is simply that like evasion clause (and also like DPP Wobbuffet, DPP Shaymin-S) Moody is banned for uncompetitive reasons, not broken ones.

Pokemon, moves, items, etc. are banned under uncompetitive clauses because they detract from the skill of the game, and cause decisions to be greatly taken out of the hands of the players. Notice the word greatly.

As you pointed out, there is a degree-- just like broken pokemon have to truly be over-powering, things banned under uncompetitive clauses also have to have a degree to which they take the decisions/play out of the hands of the player. That's why for uncompetitive bans, just like broken bans, there are sometimes needs for tests (though much less so, since we are much less tolerant of uncompetitive game aspects than overly strong Pokemon).

For instance, items like Quick Claw or King's Rock could be said to have uncompetitive aspects to them, however we haven't banned them simply because they don't have enough of an effect on the game to merit a ban. Similarly, Machamp and Jirachi can cause a lot of chaos with their haxing, but both Pokemon have yet to be deemed to have too great of an impact in game mechanics to merit a ban (neither of these are at DPP Wobbuffet's level or Mega Gengar's level in other words).

As you pointed out, Accupressure likewise has too little effect on games to yet merit an uncompetitive ban.

That's also why I at least have abstained from locking this thread-- because phazing ignoring evasion does mean a lot less influence of moody on the game, lessening its degree of uncompetitiveness.

However, as stated-- we are MUCH LESS tolerant of uncompetitive game aspects, and the onus is on the pro-moody side to make an intelligible argument as to why we should even consider something as ridiculous as Moody.

Moody is not banned under evasion clause. It has its own clause/ban. The point is simply that like evasion clause (and also like DPP Wobbuffet, DPP Shaymin-S) Moody is banned for uncompetitive reasons, not broken ones.

Moody isn't banned under being broken-- like all evasion clause restrictions, it's banned under being uncompetitive. Actual win % with moody is irrelevant to its ban status.

I realize that I may have been interpreting what you were saying wrong, but the bolded part of your post is misleading. It appears (to me at least) that you are grouping Moody into "evasion clause restrictions". My bad for reading that wrong.

Pokemon, moves, items, etc. are banned under uncompetitive clauses because they detract from the skill of the game, and cause decisions to be greatly taken out of the hands of the players. Notice the word greatly.

I'm assuming that bans are done with the intent of shaping the metagame towards the goals in the "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame" thread [http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/characteristics-of-a-desirable-pokemon-metagame.66515/]. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to ignore the following few points.

First, I'd like to point out the "competitive" and "skill" are two separate goals according to that thread. So if something detracts from the skill of the game, surely it would be banned because it violates the "skill" goal rather than the "competitive" goal as you seem to indicate here. Obviously this isn't the core of your argument, but it's still something that I feel needs to be pointed out. (Not just to you, but to everyone. People seems to evoke things like "competitiveness" and "skill" without having taken the time to read the thread defining them. As an off-topic question, where would I post a thread addressing this?) Your "the decision is out of the hands of the player" argument is completely valid and an excellent point that I agree with. Although, I'm having trouble finding which section of the "Characteristics" thread actually addresses this. It doesn't seem to fall under "Competitive." The following is a quote from the "What should be banned" section of the blog that is linked to under the competitive section:

"Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it."

This seems to indicate that for something to be banned under being uncompetitive, it needs to "break the game" ie people have to be winning with it. So statements like "Moody is banned for uncompetitive reasons, not broken ones." seem to be kind of vacuously false. I'll admit that I haven't read the whole sirlin.net article in a loooong time; I just re-read the "What should be banned" section, so if I'm misunderstanding the definition of "competitive", correct me, but as its defined in the thread, it seems to be directly linked with winning, so evasion taking luck "out of the hands of the player" doesn't really seems to matter unless it is consistently the best way to ensure that you are winning games.

It also doesn't seem to fall under "Skill" for the same reason. Description of skill: "The metagame should require knowledge and practice to become an expert player and to achieve consistent success at the highest levels of play." Best case scenario, evasion detracts from skill because it opens an opportunity for lower-level players to break the consistency of winning (assuming success=winning) for higher level players, but the degree that it detracts from the consistency of winning is what I think is a reasonable topic that should be discussed, as "luck", "adherence", and "variety" are also goals for the metagame that could potentially, although it is no guarantee, fall in favor of Moody and evasion moves. The rest of your post is, in my opinion, spot on.

Wow, that was a lot of not-super-coherent typing. I got a little off-track, so let me summarize:
-For fear of me looking like a dick, I'm not trying to be mean or imply that you haven't thought through what you are saying/are not intelligent. I know that tone is hard to convey through text over the internet, so anything mean or offensive is absolutely not what I'm trying to communicate here.
-The "higher ups" (people with access to the policy review forum) have given us strict definitions of terminology and goals for the metagame to work with, so using this terminology properly will save a lot of arguing between people using different definitions for different words (ie most of this thread so far)
-Perhaps the "Characteristics" thread needs some slight revising.

All that being said, here are some leading question that should (hopefully) lead to productive discussion:
(1) Was Moody ever legal? If it was, were people consistently winning with it? Same questions for Double Team and the like.
(2) Is it justifiable to ban things like Double Team or Moody for a priori reasons like "we don't like this game mechanic" or "it allows lower-level players to have a chance at beating higher level players" without first taking a look at how these things influence the metagame.
(3) If Moody or Double Team were made legal for a suspect test, would they become the dominant strategy? How would the metagame change in response? Is this change good or bad?

No clue for (1), sorry.

For (2), I'm personally of the opinion that it is, though from the definitions given in the "Characteristics" thread, banning under "competitive" or "skill" terms seems inherently tied to win-rate. I'm not sure I agree with these definitions. Perhaps they need to be flesh-out further.

For (3), I don't think they would become a high-level dominant strategy. Relying on luck is not a good way to win consistently. The being said, phazing moves would go up, Defog would gain a little bit more utility, technician people with access to never-miss moves would get used more, people would use lower-power never-miss moves. Overall, I think this would slow the metagame down to a more gen3/gen4 pace. Whether that is good or not in entirely subjective. I think I'd rather like that metagame personally. Just one man's opinion though.

EDIT: I forgot to actually include the point of my post: Instead of simply declaring Moody (and evasion although this topic isn't really about that) as an evil and appealing to "competitiveness" or "evasion clause" like many posters in the topic are doing, let's actually discuss it in light of the goals for the metagame that have already been determined.

 

[Dragontamer]

Using Moody and stalling till Evasion boosts kick in? NOT FUN AT ALL and the only 100% accuracy move that is usable is Roserade's Techinician Magical Leaf

Aegislash Sacred Sword, Lucario Aura Sphere. Odor Sleuth and Foresight, No Guard Machamp. Hailstorm Blizzard, Rain Hurricane, Rain Thunder.

Crobat Haze, Roar, Whirlwind.

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

Why are we still discussing this? The gods of Smogon that control suspect tests and bans have said pretty clearly that usage of strategies including evasion and moody do not promote competitive game play and will never be readmitted to the metagame because they promote luck based strategies as opposed to skill (and to a lesser extent, will lessen the diversity of the metagame, but primarily the luck thing). It has nothing to do with being broken or OP, its just not good for the metagame to allow these strategies in. END OF STORY.

 

[DunnoBro]

I wish stuff like speed boost and moody only happened every other turn, they stack way too much and quickly otherwise.

 

[FlameUser64]

On the subject of Evasion: Just as hoping to 2HKO with Focus Blast is a calculated risk on the part of the player using it (and with only a 49% chance of hitting the target twice in a row, it's quite the risk), so is using an Evasion boost and hoping your opponent misses as a result. So many moves and abilities exist now that ignore Evasion completely, but they're considered non-viable because of low base power (for offensive moves) or because Pokémon that have access to them have better things to be doing (for status moves and abilities).

But "viable" is a subjective term. If Evasion is allowed, then just like the standard team-building requirements of phazing to break through stat boosts, Taunt to defeat setup leads and status, etc., people will simply run Keen Eye/Unaware/No Guard/Foresight/Miracle Eye/Telekinesis/Hone Claws/Aerial Ace/Swift/Shockwave/Magnet Bomb/Magical Leaf/Aura Sphere/STAB-Toxic/Roar/Whirlwind. And it's not like people don't use Roar, Whirlwind, and Toxic anyway. Overall, we'd see a lot fewer OHKOs/2HKOs running around, as 100+ BP low-accuracy moves become less optimal.

Yes, Evasion boosts can spiral out of control, but so can other boosting moves like Dragon Dance and Cosmic Power. And Evasion is certainly a lot easier to deal with than Dragon Dance, as letting a full Dragon Dance setup occur virtually guarantees that nothing barring Unaware users can switch in on you to force you out or clear your boosts.

 

[haunter]

Before comparing evasion to low accurancy moves again, please read the post below:

The difference between using Focus Blast and the opponent using evasion moves and Pokemon with Moody is that when you use moves with lowered accuracy, you're taking a risk of losing because they don't hit. On the other hand, when an opponent uses evasion moves or a Pokemon with Moody, RNG rolls are entirely out of your control. This is really obvious.

Anyway, this thread has no purpose, since Moody is not getting unbanned anytime soon.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I realize that I may have been interpreting what you were saying wrong, but the bolded part of your post is misleading. It appears (to me at least) that you are grouping Moody into "evasion clause restrictions". My bad for reading that wrong.


I'm assuming that bans are done with the intent of shaping the metagame towards the goals in the "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame" thread [http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/characteristics-of-a-desirable-pokemon-metagame.66515/]. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to ignore the following few points.

You're wrong. "Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame" was indeed an important thread in the development of tiering philosophy, but it's not the end all-- it's the starting point in the dialogue that followed. You're putting way too much weight on an ancient thread from the start of 4th gen tiering discussion posted by an Admin who is both inactive and not a competitive player. So yeah, you're post is way off basis. In order to be on the same page, you have to be up to date with modern tiering practice and discussion.

Also, I wasn't making an argument. I was stating facts.

This seems to indicate that for something to be banned under being uncompetitive, it needs to "break the game" ie people have to be winning with it. So statements like "Moody is banned for uncompetitive reasons, not broken ones." seem to be kind of vacuously false.

No, it's not. What this shows me is that you've never played a game with moody.

You are right though, insofar as that to be banned for being uncompetitive you have to be able to win games.

HOWEVER, the difference is that you don't have to be winning nearly as many to be banned under uncompetitive as to be banned under overpowered.

Even at its height in BW, Moody never won as many games as say, Blaziken, also allowed at that time. However, the fact is that Moody did win games, and did so in a way that almost completely took all autonomy out of the hands of the players, and completely reduced the game to rolling dice-- therefore, was bad for competitive Pokemon.

Game characteristics that reduces skill in the metagame do need to be able to win a certain degree to be banned (ie. see again not banning Quick Claw), or have some combination of high win % and high degree of taking control out of the player's hands to be deemed a problem by the tiering system.

However this margin is far less than the requirement to be banned based on power. Double Team does not win nearly as many games as Moody (something you'd know if you'd ever played against Moody frequently), however both detract from skill based play, and should stay banned.