What is "true standard"? Isn't that just all Pokemon minus what is broken? Why would we not know something is broken until it's tested in a metagame full of Pokemon that aren't broken? Why can't we ban one thing at a time until nothing _is_ broken?
True Standard - "What we started with"
of course now you're going to probably whine and say
So I guess I've been rambling a bit, but I don't see how the way OU was formed was any different than the way old UU was formed: Theory bans to fit the old ADV metagame. This initial approach was flawed for both tiers, so for UU everyone just abandoned the idea of what the old metagame is like. But in this test it seems we're using the old metagame as a barometer to judge Pokemon's power, which doesn't and has never made sense to me.
You claim "flawed". Why is it flawed? Is it simply because we haven't unbanned everything and decide from there? Are you sure?
In the end it is metagame preference, not what is broken. The characteristics of uber leaves a lot of room for preference. What is broken is subjective to the metagame at hand. It refers to playing style, it refers to people's preferences. This is why we are voting to begin with instead of just deciding for ourselves (even though we definitely can). In the end it doesn't really matter what we ban or what we don't ban because people will adapt to it.
The definition of uber, the definition of broken, is subjective to the person at hand. This is why the characteristics of uber is as vague as possible, meaning that the individual needs to argue why they think it is broken using the set frameworks.
You, by calling it flawed, are completely undermining other people. In fact, that's all you do nowadays - going around with your condescending tone. You tell them that "they are wrong" - but if they play the game differently than you, why are they wrong?
This is why Pokemon isn't perfectly competitive - people will approach the game in many different strategies and mindset and go from there - and because of the sheer number of choices at hand, it will stay competitive no matter what we do. This is why usage numbers don't always correspond with what many people consider "broken". Newbies will have their own method of playing, you will have your own method of playing, the good players will have their own method of playing.
The baseline isn't as arbitrary as you make it sound to be either. You forget that this is the metagame we were used to for over a year. It has been tested, and "save Garchomp", most people didn't have issues with it. Sure, it's based on what users were used to from ADV - but does that mean we have to test most of ubers again everytime we play? no. You undermine how much people understand this game and always give off this attitude that "you understand it best". Here's the thing - we are confident in our ability to ban things based on theory - because in theory, we capture what it can do, not how it affects the metagame. If we find what it can do a feature we don't want in the base metagame, then we ban it. Why are we not testing Mew, why are we not testing Darkrai? They're features that we as testers found it 'obviously overpowering'. Can you deal with the threats once they step down? sure.
This is the feature of the stage 1 of the suspect test. This is why all the things that are not so "obviously overpowering" are being tested. This is why the effects on the metagame is relatively irrelevant at this point in stage one. We want to know what the Pokemon can do within this metagame. This is why we are voting. This is why it is a slap in the face when you guys dont play suspect and yet constantly whine - Smogon is literally handing this over to you on a silver platter and the community as a whole reject it. This is why testing the suspect is important.
You proclaim that we should test everything "all at once", over and over again. But when these unneeded features overlap, what are you going to do? Do we get to know how user X can deal with Latias and Latias specifically? Nah. We get to know how user X has to deal with everything at the same time. You throw around the word "broken" like it can be objectively defined - but its not. It is arbitrary. Something will always be broken for someone anyway so your "ban everything until nothing is broken" approach doesn't really work anyway. In the end, your approach being just as arbitrary as the current suspect test, and in fact, it's likely worse simply because we don't have the everuseful "baseline" that we are so used to for a long time to measure if something is broken.
If UU had a banlist as small as OU's, then I honestly doubt that we would have done the nUU test to begin with - since the need only came up because the BL list was literally large enough to be its own tier (it had over 50 Pokemon in BL). nUU is just shifting BL into UU. There isn't really justification like that to unban everything at once in OU and you keep using the example - but I advise you to stop because you're completely ignoring the circumstances behind it (but then again when did you ever care about circumstances of anything.... lol. I wouldn't be surprised if you're really just trolling us all at this point and trying your hardest to get the longest responses for the most silly points you can think of)
