My Theories about Banning

[LionFang]

For some reason, whenever I see another Pokémon bumped to ubers or to BL I always get somewhat irked. Now it’s not because I used them, in fact I was happy to see Latias gone as I have a bias against any legendary in standard play. No, it gets to me for two reasons: In my eyes it is futile and it is biased. To explain the futility of it my first theory:

The Ice Cube Cup: Think of a very big cup. This cup is so big it is holding a couple hundred ice cubes. Of course, only the biggest and a few ice cubes with unique shapes that allow them to fit in the gaps are at the top of the waterline. This is my metaphor for metagame “centralization” which seems to me one of the biggest arguments for banning any said Pokémon. Most people will only want to use the strongest and the most convenient Pokémon. No competitive player is going to use Flygon for purely offensive purposes when they can get a hold of Garchomp.

Returning to our cup let’s say you remove one of the biggest ice cubes from the cup. Another big ice cube will rise, the whole top of the waterline will shift, but in the end you are still going to have only a certain few ice cubes on top. The same thing happens when you ban a Pokémon. When Garchomp was around Weavile was a top dog (well actually cat… weasel?) for being able to OHKO one of the biggest threats of the metagame. However when Garchomp was banned that little nook the Weavile ice cube resided disappeared and the Scizor ice cube pushed it under the waterline. My point is when you ban a Pokémon, the metagame isn’t decentralized, it’s REcentralized. There will only ever be room for so many Pokémon in OU and when you eliminate the “best” the second best will take its spot.

A little anecdote before I explain my next theory. I was on Shoddy a while ago during a time when Smogon’s section was out. Most people were forced to use Colin’s. This was after Garchomp was banned and enough players had readjusted their teams expecting its absence. Needless to say Colin got many people asking him why Garchomp was not banned, to which the clever and, well, let’s say high-on-his-horse Canadian replied, “Why is Beedrill not banned?” Now I don’t think that Colin was at all saying Beedrill was as powerful as Garchomp but remember the arguments that banned Garchomp or if you don’t remember think of the arguments that resulted in Salamence being banned: it’s too strong, with only one turn to set up it can destroy my entire team, it’s unpredictable, etc. Well, if you’re clever like Colin you could come up with a similar and very sound sounding argument for banning Beedrill. For example, with access to Substitute, Swarm, Swords Dance, and a Salac Berry it could easily overpower any team (Don’t believe that Beedrill can do such things? YouTube Beedrill sweep). When I was looking over people’s opinions about what the next banned Pokémon should be, I was surprised by how many different Pokémon were suggested. People, there will always be reasons for banning a certain Pokémon and this banning game could go on forever but in my opinion the only thing that will be accomplished is a ripple in the cup.

Defensive Centered Metagame: It is much easier to have a capable offensive Pokémon than a defensive one. On Serebii’s list of Pokémon with the highest defensive stat Hippowdon comes in 38th place and Bronzong comes in 39th. Now with higher places are 6 ubers and a few OU’s such as Skarmory and Gliscor and others used for offense rather than defense like Metagross but many of the Pokémon above 38th and 39th place are Pokémon that people would never consider for an OU team such as the rock-steel Bastiodon, the terrible Magcargo, and the flawed Cloyster. A defensive Pokémon is limited not only by stats but by move-set, and of course typing. However when those three aspects come together you have a Pokémon that is truly a wall, nigh unbeatable to what it is supposed to counter.

In fact, there are some Pokémon so defensive that they can counter about half the metagame. Almost no one is getting past Blissey firing off special attack moves and you still have to be pretty dang strong to get past it with physical moves. Hippowdon can shrug off basically any unboosted physical attack and become even more defensive with Curse.

Now I have a hard time really tying this together, but I believe that the metagame is centered around who you have to get past rather than who you have to counter. Let’s try it this way: the offense of one Pokémon cannot limit other Pokémon as much as defense can. The stronger attack of Lucario does not limit a Zangoose with a lesser base stat because if it wins the speed tie, it is knocking out Luke. However a Zangoose is limited by a Hippowdon’s mammoth defenses because unboosted Zangoose cannot hope to do more than half-health. Tying this back to the ice-cube analogy the defensive giants are huge bulky ice cubes that disallow the usefulness of many otherwise capable offensive threats such as Zangoose, Ursaring, Alakazam, etc… The offensive Pokémon on top are there because they fit into the niche of having the tools to get past the big defenders, not necessarily because they are the best attackers.

I’m really getting long-winded now so let’s wrap this up quickly. Now I’m not saying the metagame is biased because I hate all defensive Pokémon. I say it is biased because while we’re OK with banning a Salamence for being able to wreck over half the metagame we hardly consider Blissey when it can counter over half the Pokémon in the game. If you hope to uncentralize the metagame completely I believe you would have to ban Zapdos, Hippowdon, Blissey and Chansey, Bronzong, Celebi, Jirachi, Heatran, Vaporeon, and whoever else is a solid counter to over a third of attackers. With them gone there would be room for lots of attackers to prove their strength and the metagame would not be one of leftovers but one of choice items and life orbs.

Why did I waste so much of my life and yours talking about banning? Because my hope for the game is that it will remain a GAME. I don’t believe that Pokémon should be a science where anybody who is somewhat smart can easily choose a good combo of top tier contenders; I believe it should be a fun game where the player who is most clever and creative will see results. When you spend so much time on deciding who to ban you miss the point: it should not be about who wins or loses a game and with what Pokémon, it should be about how you play it.

Thank you for hearing me out.

 

[Baldafor]

So basically, you are saying that banning Wobbuffet was a mistake because other pokemon would just take its place?

I don't see how your analogy fits in the case of any pokemon with Shadow Tag, because the only way it would make sense is if the ice cube took up 3/4 of the cup, because that's how good Wobbuffet is.

Yah, some other pokemon is more used now that Wobbuffet is banned, but does that make the glass of water taste better?

Even if the glass has just the right amount of ice, in the perfect shapes and order, the flavor those cubes add makes all the difference, and Garchomp/Wobbuffet are disgusting enough to throw off the whole drink.

Are you suggesting we should unban all the ubers, or just Salamence?

 

[Sandstreamer]

I am so happy you are posting this, OP. It's kinda what I thought for a long time now.
The ice cube metaphor is basically true and people here tend not to accept that: The act of banning is arbitrary. That's because the only argument to really ban something is taste (see Baldafor's post for this metaphor). The ice cube cup will adjust itself regardless of which ice cube you remove. But then again, some people like some ice cubes more than others. Objectively speaking, a metagame with Garchomp is by no means worse than a metagame without. It's just that most people want at least 30 ice cubes on top. ^^
It really comes down to what you expect when you get into pokemon. If we were all used to all teams having quite the same pokemon, we would not have minded Garchomp (or Wobbuffet), either. But most of us came to Pokemon expecting SOME variety and that's why we ensure that by bans.
The best example that banning results from the difference between expectations and actual battling is Blissey. It is IMO one of the most broken pokemon in the game. You must realize that Blissey alone prevents special setup sweepers from being as successful as their physical counterparts. Snorlax is the next-greatest special wall but it is much easier to handle as it has quite a few less options. So, why isn't Blissey banned? Because it's there since Gen 2. People forgot (or didn't even know in the first place) that Blissey was not as broken in Gen 2. There were times when the Blissey:Miltank split was pretty much 50:50 (Heal Bell was a over-centralizing move in GSC). Also, in GSC, there were some more reasons why you could not start a special sweep. Being stopped by Blissey was not the main one. Thus, when Blissey finally became the main hindrance to special sweepers, everyone has already accepted that special sweeping is inferior and does not expect otherwise. Thus, no Blissey ban.
I'm neither for nor against bans. I'm pretty much fine with what you guys do. But people need to realize the real reasons behind this. And that banning is not about how certain pokemon ARE, but how much we LIKE certain pokemon.

EDIT: To further respond to Baldafor's post:
Wobbuffet is strange case, I guess. It's perhaps quite a large ice cube, but also an ice cube with a really strange form. This means, that it greatly influences which other ice cubes can swim on top. And indeed, Wobbuffet was replaced by others. Just remember, that in a metagame with Wobbu, CSChomp would have been no crucial threat. That means that LOWeavile or Froslass could have been sure to outspeed. It also means that fast CSTtar, CSAbsol, CSSharpedo or CSHeracross can revenge a weakened Garchomp (they can afford a CS when they throw around strong dark and bug moves). You see, that banning a pokemon can have really suprising effect on the metagames, as it's hard to predict which ice cubes replace it.

 

[General_Norris]

Your methapor is invalid. The reason being that if you ban, say Metwo and it gets replaced with Porygon-Z you didn't go back to square one. The metagame is slower and Porygon-Z doesn't have 400+ HP and almost 400 Speed.

There is no replacement because the two strategies are not the same.

Also your comparison with Beedrill is laughable. You know that Beedrill sucks. The only way to prove me wrong is to win tournaments with it and prove that either you are with me or against me.

The offensive Pokémon on top are there because they fit into the niche of having the tools to get past the big defenders, not necessarily because they are the best attackers.

You are being subjective, don't you see?

If you can't win with a poké then its a bad poké. That's the way it works! A good ofensive poke is the one who helps you to win, not the one with bigger numbers.

I say it is biased because while we’re OK with banning a Salamence for being able to wreck over half the metagame we hardly consider Blissey when it can counter over half the Pokémon in the game.

You can switch Machamp or Heracross, for example, into Blissey. You can't switch anything on Salamance. Blissey has counters, Salamance doesn't according to what Smogon decided.

Not having a counter is one of the reasonings Smogon uses to ban a Pokémon.


Using the usual Magic example. Tinker and Academy decks dominated the format. Those two cards were so powerful that late game was considered the coin flip to see who started. Combo winter began and Magic almost died because a game that ends in turn two is not strategical.

Those cards were finally banned and instead of two decks ruling the format we say like 20. Extended went back to its 4-turn speed and Magic became fun again. You could make choices other than what land you are going to play in your only turn.

Those formats were not the same. In fact, if you had two formats with the same number of decks and one were slower than the other the slower format would require more choices and thus more skill, resulting in more fun*

*The exception being overly long games. Also such situation is impossible as an overly slow format would be dominated by control or stall.

EDIT: You could say that how long a game lasts is a balance between skill (Longer = more choices = more skill) and excitement (Faster = Higher stakes)

 

[LionFang]

First you talk about The Ice Cube Cup, in which banning a powerful OU threat to Ubers merely recentralises the metagame around the next most powerful threat.

Then you talk about a Defensive Centred Metagame, in which you explain your belief that banning defensive checks such as Blissey, Bronzong etc would lead to a more "healthy" metagame based around Life Orbs and Choice items.

Don't you think the two points are somewhat contradictory?

If the likes of Blissey and Bronzong were banished, would that not encourage people to start using lesser pokemon for their defensive characteristics? Uxie, Blastoise, Slowking etc springs to mind. Then people would further complain that these pokes were getting overpowered, and the cycle can continue ad infinitum.

Your first point argues against cycles of banning, while your second point seems to advocate it. You can argue for one or the other, but doing both just undermines your argument as a whole.

Yes I can see how you would interpret that, I really did not do the greatest job articulating my second point. My second theory was not supposed to be in support of banning anyone, I simply wanted to point out the overwhelming importance of defense in the metagame. With all due respect, nobody could match Blissey or Hippowdon. They truly limit which offensive pokes and my point was that they centralize the game more than any other Pokemon with good offensive capabilities. I'm glad you brought up Wobuffet. Because Wobuffet is a perfect example of how a defensive Pokemon would have the power to centralize the metagame to only offensive threats with strong bug and dark type moves.

Basically there is a bias I see against "perfect" attackers such as Garchomp but not against "perfect" defenders like Blissey.

I am not arguing for reversing all bans or banning more. I just want you to step back and ask what is really being accomplished.

 

[Baldafor]

Basically there is a bias I see against "perfect" attackers such as Garchomp but not against "perfect" defenders like Blissey.

A perfect attacker is one that, once set up properly, can sweep an entire team without opposition. This results in a win.

A perfect defender is one that, once switched in, can survive nearly indefinitely and counter any offensive strategy. This results in... nothing.

To win the game, you have to faint the other team's pokemon. Sure, there are pokemon that can wall your attempts to do so, but a wall, especially Blissey (if having a moveset designed to be a wall and not an offensive threat), cannot win a game by itself. You still have to damage the other team.

Offensive pokemon are more destructive to the metagame as a result, because even if there was a perfect "unbreakable" wall, there would be ways around it such as Choice Tricking, Destiny Bond, Perish Song, etc.

An offensive threat once setup cannot be dealt with in the same way, see SubYacheChomp

 

[LionFang]

Your methapor is invalid. The reason being that if you ban, say Metwo and it gets replaced with Porygon-Z you didn't go back to square one. The metagame is slower and Porygon-Z doesn't have 400+ HP and almost 400 Speed.

There is no replacement because the two strategies are not the same.

Also your comparison with Beedrill is laughable. You know that Beedrill sucks. The only way to prove me wrong is to win tournaments with it and prove that either you are with me or against me.


You are being subjective, don't you see?

If you can't win with a poké then its a bad poké. That's the way it works! A good ofensive poke is the one who helps you to win, not the one with bigger numbers.


You can switch Machamp or Heracross, for example, into Blissey. You can't switch anything on Salamance. Blissey has counters, Salamance doesn't according to what Smogon decided.

Not having a counter is one of the reasonings Smogon uses to ban a Pokémon.

Mewtwo is uber... What you're doing is comparing Mewtwo to Salamence which is as invalid as if I were to SERIOUSLY compare Beedrill to Salamence. But even Mewtwo can show how my ice cube theory would work. In the Uber tier, if Mewtwo was banned into limbo Pokemon such as Blissey, Scizor who counter it would experience declined use because there was less need for them, thus the ice cubes readjusting themself.

My Beedrill comparison was just to show how in theory ban arguments could be extended ad infitum... Not that I thought Beedrill was a good Pokemon.

If Salamence was banned for the sole because Smogon truly believed Salamence had no counters, well, I'd have some big doubts against Smogon. Prediction is a part of the game. In that light there is no Pokemon that could counter my choice band Slaking if I outpredicted my opponent. It could only be revenge killed. With moves like Ice shard, Salamence is easily revenge killed.


And when you said "If you can't win with a poké then its a bad poké. That's the way it works! A good ofensive poke is the one who helps you to win, not the one with bigger numbers." did you not see that was just what I was saying? Let me ask you is Weavile a bad Pokemon? It didn't used to be, with big threats such as Latias, Salamence, and Garchomp killed by it easilly. There was a niche for him. What determines a good Pokemon is the Pokemon around it that are used, and banning a Pokemon simply shuffles who is a better Poke and who is not such a good Poke.

 

[LionFang]

A perfect defender is one that, once switched in, can survive nearly indefinitely and counter any offensive strategy. This results in... nothing.


An offensive threat once setup cannot be dealt with in the same way, see SubYacheChomp

If it result in nothing then there would be no point in Stall teams. It can result in crippling status being spread to your team, small attacks chipping at your offensive Pokemon's health, at the very least residual damage by stealth rocks and such.

Yes Offensive Pokemon can be more immediately destructive. But they can be dealt with. You might only be able to revenge kill it and be destined to lose one, but that's just the game. "Perfect Defensive" Pokemon could do even more damage to your team because they stick around so long, for example a Blissey simply t-waving two of your physical attackers could result in more game breaking damage than losing a Pokemon to a "Perfect Attacker" who can almost always snag a kill.

Anyways I'm gonna butt out for a while. Before you respond please make sure you are responding to my points and not the little stupid intricacies of what I say. Not that the post I'm responding did that. Just saying I know I'm not a perfect writer. Please see beyond that.

 

[Baldafor]

I would like to say that I am very glad that there are still players who use Choice Band Slaking and SalacBeedrill on the ladder because I like to have free wins.

Plus, you cannot ignore ubers using your argument, because they are pokemon as well. If we ban, we ban the things that are broken. If we didn't ban anything, it would be like how you want. Ubers isn't quite as popular as OU (like what, 50x more people play OU?), so we choose to have bans to make the game more interesting.

There are best pokemon, for sure. We just don't want it to come down to each team having the same pokemon with the same movesets, depending solely on the luck of speed ties and prediction to win.

 

[Chou Toshio]

A perfect attacker is one that, once set up properly, can sweep an entire team without opposition. This results in a win.

A perfect defender is one that, once switched in, can survive nearly indefinitely and counter any offensive strategy. This results in... nothing.

To win the game, you have to faint the other team's pokemon. Sure, there are pokemon that can wall your attempts to do so, but a wall, especially Blissey (if having a moveset designed to be a wall and not an offensive threat), cannot win a game by itself. You still have to damage the other team.

Offensive pokemon are more destructive to the metagame as a result, because even if there was a perfect "unbreakable" wall, there would be ways around it such as Choice Tricking, Destiny Bond, Perish Song, etc.

An offensive threat once setup cannot be dealt with in the same way, see SubYacheChomp

Inversely, there is no point to an offensive pokemon if it cannot kill stuff. GF purposely made the game more fast and offensive in 3rd and 4th gen, because the stallish game of 2nd gen was just too slow to be fun.

 

[Zacchaeus]

It really is true. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Every time a Pokémon occupying a niche is banned, the next best thing rises up to try and accomplish what the last Pokémon did before it. I will make a hypothetical analogy to our standard metagame.

Dragon/Ground (1) overpowers the metagame
Ice/Ground (2) will rise up to take care of the Dragon/Ground (1)
Dragon/Ground (1) is just too good, and is banned to Ubers.
Dragon/Flying (3) tries to fill the Dragon/Ground (1) niche, but the Ice/Ground (2) makes Dragon/Flying (3) useless, so either A) the niche fades away, or B) the Ice/Ground (2) is banned, thus allowing Dragon/Flying (3) to roam standard.
If A), the niche fades, and a new dominant niche appears on the horizon
If B), this is where Ice/Water (4) comes in...

In summary, either all of our niches will eventually come to a close, or there will be a continuous loop of banhammers.
Disclaimer: This is just my opinion on the subject, keep that in mind if responding

 

[ginganinja]

Well this is an interesting argument but a "balenced" metagame has already been achieved in UU. (I believe there have been no suspects for al least 1 month now). Sure there are differences between UU and OU but I still believe that a Balenced metagame is possiable.

Also I just hate the arguement that smogon is "ban happy" or that "banning is too much". By your arghument the Metagame shifts after a pokemon is banned. Well; gues what, the Metagame is always shifting. Always. Infernape and Heatran are becoming more domanant as sweepers but are they broken?
I think that we will have a stable metagame (soon if not now) which the banns have achieved.

Lastly your idea of a "uncentralised" metagame is a load of bs. The removal of Blissey, Zapdos, etc etc will again give us a metagame we alraedy have....Ubers!

Ubers is pretty much the "uncentralised" Metagame you describe were stall is near nonexistant or often not as effective as OU. Ubers is (largely) full of offensive sweepers and Choiced Items. Yet by no explanintion is Ubers equal or 'fair'. in fact Ubers can be pretty centralising as well.

Lastely you whole defensive centered metagame is poorly thought out. This is because you are proposing (whether you mean't to or not is beside the point) that we effectivally eliminate Stall from OU, ie banning an entire team style. I don't even have to say why that idea is poorly thought out.

Have a Nice Day!

 

[capefeather]

Yeah, the thing is, what you've said was repeated over and over again during the Salamence test. People KNOW that the metagame will shift to patch up the hole left by the ban. What you've said is really not new information.

Banning Pokémon is not futile. Imagine if Mewtwo was unleashed onto OU. The metagame would be broken like hell because of Mewtwo's huge stats almost everywhere. But then when we ban Mewtwo, there will be no Pokémon capable of fulfilling the same role. This is just one of many possible examples that show how short-sighted and flawed this whole "theory" is.

As for the offensive/defensive bias... Well, that's just because it's so easy to be an offensive threat in this metagame. Defensive Pokémon tend to be annoying with status but they all go down with the right counters. The same can't be said for the offensive Ubers like Latias.

 

[GMLW]

In summary, either all of our niches will eventually come to a close, or there will be a continuous loop of banhammers.

This. If you ban one thing, then whatever it checked gets banned, then whatever checked that gets banned, etc. To quote I think Thund91 from when Milotic was a UU suspect: "If Milotic gets banned, then we will be forced to ban Moltres, then we will have to ban Venusaur. . . forced to ban Magikarp because Hoppip can't check it." I honestly find it ridiculous also how Salamence and/or Latias are any more broken than they were 6 months ago or whatever. Frankly, I actually believe that the Smogon community is a bit too ban happy.

 

[Away]

Mewtwo is uber... What you're doing is comparing Mewtwo to Salamence which is as invalid as if I were to SERIOUSLY compare Beedrill to Salamence. But even Mewtwo can show how my ice cube theory would work. In the Uber tier, if Mewtwo was banned into limbo Pokemon such as Blissey, Scizor who counter it would experience declined use because there was less need for them, thus the ice cubes readjusting themself.

My Beedrill comparison was just to show how in theory ban arguments could be extended ad infitum... Not that I thought Beedrill was a good Pokemon.

If Salamence was banned for the sole because Smogon truly believed Salamence had no counters, well, I'd have some big doubts against Smogon. Prediction is a part of the game. In that light there is no Pokemon that could counter my choice band Slaking if I outpredicted my opponent. It could only be revenge killed. With moves like Ice shard, Salamence is easily revenge killed.
You assume you have perfect prediction with your Slaking. You're not always going to outpredict your opponent. In that off chance that your opponent switches a correct resist to your attack, what can you do? You give them a free turn to set up or just flat out kill your Slaking. Salamence doesn't need prediction to succeed. Fire off a Draco Meteor and your opponent's switchin is going to take some serious damage. What if your opponent switches in a Draco Meteor resist? It's probably not fast enough to compete with Salamence and now gets killed. Should it be fast enough, it's probably a frail pokemon and died anyway. What if they predicted wrong? Maybe it was a DDmence? Now their counter for Mixmence isn't going to work and gets outsped by DDMence and dies anyway.

Nothing in OU has the power to force switches like Salamence and still be able to nail the switchin hard and just flat out kill that too, should they not be expecting a Dragon Dance. Hell, if they are expecting Dragon Dance, you could be running MixMence. Both sets have very different counters.

And when you said "If you can't win with a poké then its a bad poké. That's the way it works! A good ofensive poke is the one who helps you to win, not the one with bigger numbers." did you not see that was just what I was saying? Let me ask you is Weavile a bad Pokemon? It didn't used to be, with big threats such as Latias, Salamence, and Garchomp killed by it easilly. There was a niche for him. What determines a good Pokemon is the Pokemon around it that are used, and banning a Pokemon simply shuffles who is a better Poke and who is not such a good Poke.

What's your point? Centralization wasn't the only reason Salamence was banned. It had a lot to do with it just being able to overpower the majority of OU.

This. If you ban one thing, then whatever it checked gets banned, then whatever checked that gets banned, etc. To quote I think Thund91 from when Milotic was a UU suspect: "If Milotic gets banned, then we will be forced to ban Moltres, then we will have to ban Venusaur. . . forced to ban Magikarp because Hoppip can't check it." I honestly find it ridiculous also how Salamence and/or Latias are any more broken than they were 6 months ago or whatever. Frankly, I actually believe that the Smogon community is a bit too ban happy.
Can the next biggest threat that steps up overpower everything in OU like Salamence? Likely not, or it would've already been a topOU pokemon. Name one pokemon that has the ability to force switches like Salamence and defeat most of it's "counters" regardless of what set it has. The way you're putting it; is that anything strong should get banned. That's NOT what is happening. What's happening is that pokemon like Salamence are too strong for OU as they can muscle their way through "counters." Salamence has no 100% counter.

 

[LionFang]

Sigh...

I'm not trying to say I have perfect prediction with Slaking. I am saying that saying that the argument that Salamence has no counters is the same as saying that the player with Salamence will always predict right. In THAT light I am assuming that with Slaking in UU there is no surefire counter.

Hell just because a Pokemon is powerful and versatile means there aren't surefire counters!?! I have that problem of whether a Jirachi is choice scarfed or a CM variety and I lose many games because of the difference a wrong prediction makes (the hax doesn't help either). But I take the loss in stride because it is a part of the game.

If I hear another person talk about Beedrills... I'm not trying to fight or win an argument I'm trying to present a point so please don't mudsling just to seem smarter and make me look like an idiot...

 

[General_Norris]

I'm not trying to say I have perfect prediction with Slaking. I am saying that saying that the argument that Salamence has no counters is the same as saying that the player with Salamence will always predict right. In THAT light I am assuming that with Slaking in UU there is no surefire counter.

As away already said you don't need prediction to win with Salamance.

Also no matter how good you are with Slaking it can still be countered. It can't touch anything with Substitute or Protect and if they resist one hit they can wall you or hit you back. They can also switch into your Earthquakes or Body Slams with ghosts or flying types.

Again, if you think that Slaking has no counters and is overpowered prove it by winning lots of tournaments and getting really high on the ladder with it. Its an NU poke so it seems players don't think it's a good one.

Hell just because a Pokemon is powerful and versatile means there aren't surefire counters!?!

No. A pokémon has no counters when you can't swtich anything into it and kill that pokémon.

If I hear another person talk about Beedrills... I'm not trying to fight or win an argument I'm trying to present a point so please don't mudsling just to seem smarter and make me look like an idiot...

And your point is incorrect so we point it out. You said that Beedrill can sweep, that you can make an argument similar to Garchomp to ban it even though Beedrill sucks on every level and so on.

Calling it "a point" instead of "an argument" doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[Intro1827]

This argument is rotting away and it's not even 1 day old. No counters? So what? Lucario has no counters, Scizor has no counters, Heracross has no counters, Heatran has no counters, ScarfCresselia has no counters. And that's only taking into account standard sets (okay, Cresselia is more of a joke than anything)
Similarly, Kyogre can't touch Shedinja. Kyogre for UU?

 

[domeface]

There's a key flaw in your ice-cube analogy, since "centralisation" to the extent where the pokémon in question will be banned is because it centralises too much. Ergo, there would be one oversized ice-cube on the surface, and when it's removed it'd be replaced by more than one ice cube - ergo, the group of "centralising" pokémon would be larger, and so by definition, less centralising. Because if, say, Mewtwo was allowed in OU, he would be on every single team. His ice cube would be so large it would cover almost the whole surface of the water. If we then remove that, it's replaced with the scenario you describe, lots of ice cubes covering the surface.

Banning isn't arbitrarily removing one of the "top" ice cubes at random. It's banning the ice cube that is so large or so irregularly shaped that it either covers significantly more of the surface than anything else (Garchomp), or due to its shape, forces other large ice cubes to the top that wouldn't be there otherwise (Latias and Salamence forcing Scizor and TTar to the top). Basically, it's removing the ice cubes that disrupt the balance of the other ice cubes.

Also, your statement at the beginning about disliking legendaries being allowed in standard makes no sense and makes you seem like you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Intro1827]

Reading the original post again, it seems like the major flaw in TC's way of thinking is that all Pokémon are made to be equal, and all Pokémon should be able to break their way through walls. Why else whould he talk about Zangoose, Ursaring, Alakazam?
Using his analogy, the ice cubes don't just float up to the top of the cup, they are pushing and shoving each other. The weak ones succumb, the strong ones prevail

 

[kd24]

This. If you ban one thing, then whatever it checked gets banned, then whatever checked that gets banned, etc. To quote I think Thund91 from when Milotic was a UU suspect: "If Milotic gets banned, then we will be forced to ban Moltres, then we will have to ban Venusaur. . . forced to ban Magikarp because Hoppip can't check it." I honestly find it ridiculous also how Salamence and/or Latias are any more broken than they were 6 months ago or whatever. Frankly, I actually believe that the Smogon community is a bit too ban happy.

slippery slope isn't a good argument to use.

the problem with this theory is it assumes that the pokemon has an able replacement to fill the void and continue the ban cycle. however, for this to work, you would have to expect the counters of that original pokemon to fall drastically in usage or be removed as well as have a pokemon able to fill that void. there is nothing in the metagame that replaces salamence or latias - they were entirely unique and had unqiue characteristics that made them uber.

pokemon reacts in a cycle, and using past knowledge, we can realize that the pokemon that were used to counter the biggest threats had other purpose as well. its why p2 was so low in usage - despite countering mence, it had little other purpose in ou (besides countering some threats, but fighting weakness / lower speed kills it).

in the end, the metagame cycles and shifts - even if a new pokemon rises up to be just as effective, we have found it has counters, and we are not removing them. we removed the pokemon found to be uber, not that ones that stopped him to be too powerful, meaning gaps filled in similar roles can be stopped, but this time easier.

 

[Alan]

The whole 100% counter argument was pretty much deader than Julius Caeser the day they released gen4, and it was already starting to die. There is no way anyone is going to be able to counter every threat. It is even more unlikely with the physical/special split and the introduction of new items and moves. It was possible to counter everything back in advance, but there were less pokemon and there was a spectrum of physical/special moves and types. Skarmory was the ipso facto physical wall because it didn't give a fuck about any physical type except for Fighting, but even then you had to rely on focus punch to beat it. Same goes for blissey, but for special moves.

100% counters are a fallacy that we have been ingrained into beleiving in because of Advance. There are now 493 pokemon. Approximately 60 (counting OU, BL, and select NU/UU mons that have nice uses) that are viable in OU. Each of those pokemon has around 3-4 sets, give or take. Some of these sets can work on both sides of the spectrum. (I.E. Infernape has Special, Physical and Mixed sets) If you can tell me that you can, with a team of 6 pokemon, counter all 60 of those mons, and all of those mon's sets, and still have a competitively viable team, then you are far too good to be spending your time posting in Stark Mountain.

100% Counters even started going away in Adv, with the introduction of EVs, IVs, Natures, etc. Because of this, we could make Pokemon X now beat Pokemon Y with proper training/breeding. Back in GSC, you had really no hope of beating skarmory with a physical pokemon unless it was Curse Machamp 1v1 or something like that. In Advance, you could now use CB Heracross to drastically weaken Skarmory with a properly timed Focus Punch, which made it easier for other physical stuff to switch in, like DD Mence. Abilities also changed the face of the game. Gengar could now switch in to Earthquakes whenever it felt like, and didn't give a fuck about Spikes due to Levitate. Blissey shrugged of status, Gyarados became a viable physical wall. Et cetera.

tl;dr version: no such thing as 100% counters anymore.

This argument is rotting away and it's not even 1 day old. No counters? So what? Lucario has no counters, Scizor has no counters, Heracross has no counters, Heatran has no counters, ScarfCresselia has no counters. And that's only taking into account standard sets (okay, Cresselia is more of a joke than anything)
Similarly, Kyogre can't touch Shedinja. Kyogre for UU?

Lucario is countered by Gliscor, Gyarados. Scizor is covered by an array of things, Gyarados 100% counters just about every set. Heatran is stopped up by Blissey, bar Explosion. Scarf Cress ?__?

 

[ungulateman]

Gliscor gets screwed over by Agility Lucario (seriously, who uses this again?), as well a special sets. Gyarados gets messed up by special sets and Thunderpunch (not that anyone uses it). Scizor can 2HKO Gyarados with a +1 Bug Bite after SR and LO recoil IIRC.

That's sort of irrelevant though. I agree with what domeface says, simply because it's right.

 

[greg3064]

The metagame is of course recentralized through banning, but that doesn't mean that it ISN'T decentralized as well. Pokemon do rise to fill the niches, but as they were second to the prospective banned mon before, they aren't as much of a threat, which does decentralize the metagame.

Base stats do not matter. They are obviously important but other factors like typing, ability, and movepool naturally can play much larger roles in a Pokemon's use. Physical attackers like Zangoose can't handle OU walls, while something like Infernape can. This determines what is OU defensively AND offensively. What you're suggesting seems to be lowering the line between OU and Ubers so that UU Pokemon are viable in OU.

 

[akarias]

I think you're all harping on the first point of his post, and completely ignoring the second.

People who say blissey doesn't centralize the metagame more than salamence does are out of their minds. With salamence gone, how many major tier placements change, that weren't caused by latias? Scizor? Flygon? Basically top 15 stays top 15.

If blissey was removed, the ENTIRE METAGAME would shift over to faster, special attackers. Zapdos and shaymin would surge. Porygon-z would immediately come to OU again with choice scarf. Gengar would be broken. Togekiss and specsluke would rise tremendously as well. Empoleon would skyrocket and would have only 2-3 counters w/e toxic spikes. Raikou would instantly be OU.

The point ofc isn't that blissey should be banned, it's that blissey centralizes infinitely more than salamence could ever hope to. While salamence's dragon-fire-ground hits everyone for at least neutral, blissey indiscriminately walls special attackers without any consideration of typing at all.