np: OU Suspect Testing Round 2 - Who am I to break tradition?

[tehy]

Aw.

Well;i thought i'd seen that somewhere.

And yeah;i actually agree. Swift swim is far too powerful. People compare it to agility; but i always thought that was a terrible idea. A good example of why is empoleon. Because it runs agility;it only has three moveslots, so it can't really cover everything (A good example is my specially defensive tentacruel,which laughs at surf, ice beam, and grass knot). If it even wants to make itself stronger, it has to resort to substitute+petaya berry,which limits it to one coverage move;25% hp; and no boosting item;which naturally makes it much easier to wall and revenge. Rain pokemon;on the other hand; can achieve agility without wasting a slot or a turn; and achieving a psuedo +1 boost(Only to water;but this is their main stab after all.) That means they can attack the switchin with agility empoleon's power and speed , have the ability to hold a choice item, life orb, or weaker boosting item, and still have 100% hp. Not to mention they can hold boosting moves like swords dance or dragon dance to make them even more deadly. While it's true that weather users can interfere with this, none of them except abomasnow can directly switch in on anything besides a carefully predicted coverage move, and abomasnow is such a niche pokemon that it can really only be used to counter rain teams. While i've seen things like, say, a hail tentacruel, carrying weather moves is impossible for some pokemon. My tentacruel needs its toxic spikes and rapid spin for obvious reasons;its boil overs for various fire-types,particularly heatran, which my team is weak to, and sludge bomb for ludicolo, which my team is also weak to.

Point is;weather makes pokemon ridiculously powerful. This wasn't a problem back when it could be outstalled, and you needed to manually use it;but now all you need to do is have a politoed. And politoed isn't entirely deadweight when it can use hypnosis to disable a pokemon, encore to allow free switchins of deadly boosting rain sweepers, choice specs to deal high amounts of damage, or even a choice scarf to outspeed and kill unsuspecting threats. Granted;in and of itself it is an NU pokemon, but it elevates other pokemon to the uber tier by its ability. Try a team of 1 NU, 2 OU, and 3 ubers against 6 OU's, and we'll see who wins that fight. (This analogy has slight faults;but is mostly accurate in my opinion).

The main reason that i felt that it wouldn't suck;kefka;is that besides those, other pokemon are really only elevated to OU, perhaps high OU. Therefore, it would be a team of OU versus OU, and would be maybe a little fairer;politoed's uselessness would be balanced by the other pokemon's usefulness, but not overbalanced;while the inconvenience of manually used and timed rain would be balanced out by the ability to use ubers.

And by the time it took to write this post;other people wrote things; so this is replying to kefka.

 

[fidgety]

Aw.

Well;i thought i'd seen that somewhere.

And yeah;i actually agree. Swift swim is far too powerful. People compare it to agility; but i always thought that was a terrible idea. A good example of why is empoleon. Because it runs agility;it only has three moveslots, so it can't really cover everything (A good example is my specially defensive tentacruel,which laughs at surf, ice beam, and grass knot). If it even wants to make itself stronger, it has to resort to substitute+petaya berry,which limits it to one coverage move;25% hp; and no boosting item;which naturally makes it much easier to wall and revenge. Rain pokemon;on the other hand; can achieve agility without wasting a slot or a turn; and achieving a psuedo +1 boost(Only to water;but this is their main stab after all.) That means they can attack the switchin with agility empoleon's power and speed , have the ability to hold a choice item, life orb, or weaker boosting item, and still have 100% hp. Not to mention they can hold boosting moves like swords dance or dragon dance to make them even more deadly. While it's true that weather users can interfere with this, none of them except abomasnow can directly switch in on anything besides a carefully predicted coverage move, and abomasnow is such a niche pokemon that it can really only be used to counter rain teams. While i've seen things like, say, a hail tentacruel, carrying weather moves is impossible for some pokemon. My tentacruel needs its toxic spikes and rapid spin for obvious reasons;its boil overs for various fire-types,particularly heatran, which my team is weak to, and sludge bomb for ludicolo, which my team is also weak to.

Point is;weather makes pokemon ridiculously powerful. This wasn't a problem back when it could be outstalled, and you needed to manually use it;but now all you need to do is have a politoed. And politoed isn't entirely deadweight when it can use hypnosis to disable a pokemon, encore to allow free switchins of deadly boosting rain sweepers, choice specs to deal high amounts of damage, or even a choice scarf to outspeed and kill unsuspecting threats. Granted;in and of itself it is an NU pokemon, but it elevates other pokemon to the uber tier by its ability. Try a team of 1 NU, 2 OU, and 3 ubers against 6 OU's, and we'll see who wins that fight. (This analogy has slight faults;but is mostly accurate in my opinion).

The main reason that i felt that it wouldn't suck;kefka;is that besides those, other pokemon are really only elevated to OU, perhaps high OU. Therefore, it would be a team of OU versus OU, and would be maybe a little fairer;politoed's uselessness would be balanced by the other pokemon's usefulness, but not overbalanced;while the inconvenience of manually used and timed rain would be balanced out by the ability to use ubers.

And by the time it took to write this post;other people wrote things; so this is replying to kefka.

so you want to hurt some 19 pokes for the doings of like 3 that makes no sense.

 

[tehy]

Why?

Please explain.

 

[XienZo]

It's from several pages back, but I need to address this.

Jeez, these last couple of pages of pages have been ridiculous. I'm suffering from serious insomnia, but here's my thoughts on all of this.

We need to ban drizzle, as it's obviously the problem. To the poster that talked about the "slippery slope" of banning abilities, do you not remember the last suspect test when an ability was banned?

Inconsistent was hardly the norm; it was banned for plenty of reasons, such as the massive luck factor, that are not applicable here.

I always thought the goal of this community was to create a desirable metagame (granted, that's highly subjective) with as few bans as possible. But in spite of this commitment, people are suggesting we make three bans on pokemon, two of which weren't even good enough for standard last gen, instead of drizzle? Permanent rain is about the only thing these guys got in the generation shift, and I honestly can't believe people are claiming this isn't where the problem lies. The rain "playstyle" of heavy offense can still be achieved with a damp rock. Rain stall can get fucked. Sorry, but preserving "a certain style of play" means shit. What if my preferred style of play is to spam evasion modifiers? Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to enjoy that on the ladder, and I kinda just have to deal with it.

Evasion outprioritizes other concerns due to the luck factor more than anything else.

But even ignoring how broken drizzle obviously is, I'm really shocked that you guys are even having fun at this point. I've been keeping off the ladder lately since almost every team I face factors in a permanent weather condition. And why is that? It's because two conditions are actually good (rain and sand, though sand really only has two abusers period) and the other two are being spammed more than they deserve in order to just stand a chance against them. And unlike sand, whose two main stars are brand new, we know these swift swimmers very well.

And THIS, once again, is the problem. It doesn't matter what is new or what is old. If it's broken now, it's broken. We don't "excuse" the trio because they were ok last generation. Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only.

As I said before, drizzle is the only addition this proposed "trio" has gotten in B/W. I really don't know about you guys, but does anyone else think about how insane it is that Latios and Mew are still rolling around standard just because people don't think to use them enough? Some of the best pokemon in the game are being punted off teams in order to make way for Nattorei and priority users because of drizzle. When people are putting hail on Vaporeon, then it's not just adjusting to the metagame, that's overcentralization to a tee.

Offensive rain, in its current state, certainly may be overcentralizing.


However, we NEVER fix overcentralization by changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon within it; the policy has always been to ban the pokemon if it's broken in the metagame.

It's simply absurd to try to reshape the metagame just to keep a few pokemon in OU, a few pokemon that pretty much cause the overcentralization of the entire metagame. By eliminating them, instead of Drizzle/Swift Swim, there is no "collateral" damage; while other Swift Swimmers/rain stall strategies are completely viable but not broken, the idea of a "rain-less Kingdra" is, in the 5th gen, as artificial of an idea as a "sandstorm-less Dory".

 

[fidgety]

It's from several pages back, but I need to address this.



Inconsistent was hardly the norm; it was banned for plenty of reasons, such as the massive luck factor, that are not applicable here.



Evasion outprioritizes other concerns due to the luck factor more than anything else.



And THIS, once again, is the problem. It doesn't matter what is new or what is old. If it's broken now, it's broken. We don't "excuse" the trio because they were ok last generation. Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only.




Offensive rain, in its current state, certainly may be overcentralizing.


However, we NEVER fix overcentralization by changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon within it; the policy has always been to ban the pokemon if it's broken in the metagame.

It's simply absurd to try to reshape the metagame just to keep a few pokemon in OU, a few pokemon that pretty much cause the overcentralization of the entire metagame. By eliminating them, instead of Drizzle/Swift Swim, there is no "collateral" damage; while other Swift Swimmers/rain stall strategies are completely viable but not broken, the idea of a "rain-less Kingdra" is, in the 5th gen, as artificial of an idea as a "sandstorm-less Dory".

thank you, i really did not want to go through this all after last time i made a large post (completely ignored despite some major points in it).

 

[tehy]

Eh;Good point too.

And although inconsistent reduces the game to a dice roll, it still means that certain abilities can break the pokemon;rather than the pokemon themselves;so we ban the ability. The reason that this wasn't the norm was that abilities were never really that broken; kyogre might have been banned for his ability, or groudon, but both of those pokemon are so overpowered that we never really had to make a distinction, and they lack alternate abilities, so a distinction wasn't actually possible. Now, the pokemon in question is NOT overpowered, and it has alternate abilities, so such a decision can be made.

 

[ensoriki]

Screens? That's what your comparing drizzle to, really? Screens can...

A) Be stalled out, which drizzle can not.
B) Provide aid for any given member on the team; it doesn't break any one thing in particular.
C) Needs to be set up manually, wasting a turn, which is obviously not the case for drizzle.

Screens had absolutely nothing to do with how broken the pokemon you listed are. And screens are much more comparable to damp rock than drizzle. If a pokemon had auto-reflect/lightscreen that lasted the whole game, then you would have a point. And that would be also be broken as hell, in my opinion.

You opened your mouth without understanding that Screens was simple an exaggerated example to convey a point. Instead of getting the point you merely attacked the example without even understanding the purpose it served.
If you don't get it be quiet.

 

[fidgety]

Eh;Good point too.

And although inconsistent reduces the game to a dice roll, it still means that certain abilities can break the pokemon;rather than the pokemon themselves;so we ban the ability. The reason that this wasn't the norm was that abilities were never really that broken; kyogre might have been banned for his ability, or groudon, but both of those pokemon are so overpowered that we never really had to make a distinction, and they lack alternate abilities, so a distinction wasn't actually possible. Now, the pokemon in question is NOT overpowered, and it has alternate abilities, so such a decision can be made.

i recall some1 mentioning that ogre + groudon @ level 1 were tested last gen they "found" rain to be uber although i think it was more likely it was deemed balancing rain in such a form was more work than a lvl 1 poke was worth.

 

[Sheaz]

Inconsistent was hardly the norm; it was banned for plenty of reasons, such as the massive luck factor, that are not applicable here.

It still sets a new precedent. It's a new way of thinking for a new generation.

Evasion outprioritizes other concerns due to the luck factor more than anything else.

Perhaps my example was a flawed one, but it still stands. Rain stall isn't particularly good or popular, and I see no reason why we should cater to this group.

And THIS, once again, is the problem. It doesn't matter what is new or what is old. If it's broken now, it's broken. We don't "excuse" the trio because they were ok last generation. Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only.

I'm not holding on the last metagame at all. I'm simply saying that, due to our experience with these pokemon, it's very obvious what sends them over the top. This same experience is why we immediately set pokemon like Arceus and Mewtwo to ubers this gen without trial. Do you think that is a wrong decision? I'm not trying to "excuse" them, I'm simply upholding the principles of making a fun metagame with as few bans as possible.

Offensive rain, in its current state, certainly may be overcentralizing.

It pretty clearly is.

However, we NEVER fix overcentralization by changing the metagame to fit the Pokemon within it; the policy has always been to ban the pokemon if it's broken in the metagame.

And now there is a new policy. It's a new generation. To quote you, "Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only."

It's simply absurd to try to reshape the metagame just to keep a few pokemon in OU, a few pokemon that pretty much cause the overcentralization of the entire metagame. By eliminating them, instead of Drizzle/Swift Swim, there is no "collateral" damage; while other Swift Swimmers/rain stall strategies are completely viable but not broken, the idea of a "rain-less Kingdra" is, in the 5th gen, as artificial of an idea as a "sandstorm-less Dory".

But we don't know if these three are even the problem. It's simply arrogant to assume that bucking these three to ubers will fix the problem. If this is the course of action, then I guarantee you that at least one more swift swimmer will be sent to ubers, possibly more, which mauls the metagame even more. At a certain point we're just going to neuter rain offense to the point where the strategy isn't viable, and maybe weather will calm down then, but not until we have a huge banlist that includes weather abusers from all the weather conditions (except hail).

 

[tehy]

Thats true fidgety,and it is broken.
My point is though,they never actually had to make that decision, so using previous history as a point is pointless.

 

[Sheaz]

You opened your mouth without understanding that Screens was simple an exaggerated example to convey a point. Instead of getting the point you merely attacked the example without even understanding the purpose it served.
If you don't get it be quiet.

You used a horrible analogy, and I pointed it out. That's how debates work. Don't be a dick simply because you don't know the etiquette.

 

[tehy]

Agreed,sheaz. All screens do is allow my hippowdon to stockpile;then i roar until the screens fade. They're annoying,but manageable. Infinite screens WOULd be broken.

 

[fidgety]

It still sets a new precedent. It's a new way of thinking for a new generation.

no the ability was found to be broken a LOOP HOLE IN EVASION CLAUSE no less 1 could easily argue that we were closing that hole (that's what she said).


Perhaps my example was a flawed one, but it still stands. Rain stall isn't particularly good or popular, and I see no reason why we should cater to this group.

1. flawed doesn't cut it on that example the reason nus are nus is that they go unused the tiering system is USAGE BASED.

2.the reason that rain stall is unused is generic stall streight down to the legendary scarmbliss combo struggles some in this meta + that already had a foot hold in standards.


I'm not holding on the last metagame at all. I'm simply saying that, due to our experience with these pokemon, it's very obvious what sends them over the top. This same experience is why we immediately set pokemon like Arceus and Mewtwo to ubers this gen without trial. Do you think that is a wrong decision? I'm not trying to "excuse" them, I'm simply upholding the principles of making a fun metagame with as few bans as possible.

here you are siply confusing SMOGON POLICY which can be worked around with THE ACTUAL GOAL OF SUSPECT a fun + balanced meta-game with as many VIABLE PLAY STYLES AS POSSIBLE.


It pretty clearly is.



And now there is a new policy. It's a new generation. To quote you, "Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only."

the arguement you are trying to negate was directed towards the less dangerous of lat gen's ubers not the banning policies of last gen.



But we don't know if these three are even the problem. It's simply arrogant to assume that bucking these three to ubers will fix the problem. If this is the course of action, then I guarantee you that at least one more swift swimmer will be sent to ubers, possibly more, which mauls the metagame even more. At a certain point we're just going to neuter rain offense to the point where the strategy isn't viable, and maybe weather will calm down then, but not until we have a huge banlist that includes weather abusers from all the weather conditions (except hail).

that is why we are TESTING to find out if this is the correct move if not we can recall them to ou 1 at a time to find out if they are ok in the adapted meta also you apparently missed the part of my post addressing this topic manaphy + kingdra were the only 1s that i sugjested to go first off + if you want this meta without manaphy but with kingdra there is the beta server (a huge advantage since we can compare + contrast metas.)

 

[Sheaz]

fidgety, I wasn't even responding to you. What the hell?

 

[fidgety]

fidgety, I wasn't even responding to you. What the hell?

i was responding since your post was also against my opinions this is not a mano a mano debate.

 

[TheValkyries]

It still sets a new precedent. It's a new way of thinking for a new generation.

Yeah, the precedent is we can ban Broken abilities. How is Drizzle broken? Does it rain hurt you, and touch you inappropriately? What about the Rain is broken? Oh, you mean to say that the abusers are broken? So why ban Drizzle, why not Swift Swim? Is it because not all of the Swift Swimmers are broken? Then why are we using large encompassing bans for a problem that's limited to a select group of pokemon?

I'm not holding on the last metagame at all. I'm simply saying that, due to our experience with these pokemon, it's very obvious what sends them over the top. This same experience is why we immediately set pokemon like Arceus and Mewtwo to ubers this gen without trial. Do you think that is a wrong decision? I'm not trying to "excuse" them, I'm simply upholding the principles of making a fun metagame with as few bans as possible.

Where did this "as few bans as possible" rhetoric even come from. That's not Smogon's Goal. Smogon's goal is too simply create a fun metagame. We do that by banning what's broken, not by playing banlist golf trying to get the lowest number of bans.

And now there is a new policy. It's a new generation. To quote you, "Last generation means absolutely nothing. Any argument for banning should refer to this generation and this generation only."

So because there's a new way of banning things, that's the only way we should operate?

But we don't know if these three are even the problem. It's simply arrogant to assume that bucking these three to ubers will fix the problem. If this is the course of action, then I guarantee you that at least one more swift swimmer will be sent to ubers, possibly more, which mauls the metagame even more.

That's arrogant to assume that more than the trio are broken, or if the trio as a whole are broken at all for that matter. We find this out by finding the most blatantly broken and banning it, and seeing what we get from there.

At a certain point we're just going to neuter rain offense to the point where the strategy isn't viable, and maybe weather will calm down then, but not until we have a huge banlist that includes weather abusers from all the weather conditions (except hail).

More assumptions about how banning only what's broken means we're going to over ban. Kind of funny, honestly.

fidgety, I wasn't even responding to you. What the hell?

Oh, so only people you want to argue with are allowed to argue? No one else can call you out on saying something stupid?

 

[masterful]

Yeah, the precedent is we can ban Broken abilities. How is Drizzle broken? Does it rain hurt you, and touch you inappropriately? What about the Rain is broken? Oh, you mean to say that the abusers are broken? So why ban Drizzle, why not Swift Swim? Is it because not all of the Swift Swimmers are broken? Then why are we using large encompassing bans for a problem that's limited to a select group of pokemon?


Where did this "as few bans as possible" rhetoric even come from. That's not Smogon's Goal. Smogon's goal is too simply create a fun metagame. We do that by banning what's broken, not by playing banlist golf trying to get the lowest number of bans.


So because there's a new way of banning things, that's the only way we should operate?



That's arrogant to assume that more than the trio are broken, or if the trio as a whole are broken at all for that matter. We find this out by finding the most blatantly broken and banning it, and seeing what we get from there.

More assumptions about how banning only what's broken means we're going to over ban. Kind of funny, honestly.




Oh, so only people you want to argue with are allowed to argue? No one else can call you out on saying something stupid?

Banning those sweepers kills rain offense. Please make an attempt to refute opposing points before just repeating the same tired, incorrect logic to every new poster

 

[fidgety]

Banning those sweepers kills rain offense. Please make an attempt to refute opposing points before just repeating the same tired, incorrect logic to every new poster

there is a difference between hampering (weakening) which is the best way to handle this and killing (completely removing the viability there of) that would be the effect of a DRIZZLE ban.

 

[Nanoswine]

Yeah, the precedent is we can ban Broken abilities. How is Drizzle broken? Does it rain hurt you, and touch you inappropriately? What about the Rain is broken? Oh, you mean to say that the abusers are broken? So why ban Drizzle, why not Swift Swim? Is it because not all of the Swift Swimmers are broken? Then why are we using large encompassing bans for a problem that's limited to a select group of pokemon?

Your logic is flawed. The reason Inconsistent was banned was because it broke the Pokemon that had it. In other words, the abusers. Can everyone get it in their heads that Swift Swim doesn't break crap without Drizzle to activate it infinitely? Also, if by "large encompassing bans" you mean the ban on Inconsistent, every Pokemon that had it was broken, so it wasn't affecting anything that wasn't broken in conjunction with it.

Where did this "as few bans as possible" rhetoric even come from. That's not Smogon's Goal. Smogon's goal is too simply create a fun metagame. We do that by banning what's broken, not by playing banlist golf trying to get the lowest number of bans.

That's part of it sure, but you clearly have a misunderstanding of Smogon policy...

So because there's a new way of banning things, that's the only way we should operate?

The only time an ability should be banned is if every Pokemon that has it is broken. That way we know for sure that the ability is broken, not the Pokemon that have it. Every Pokemon that had Inconsistent was broken. Every Pokemon that has Drizzle is broken. Not every Pokemon that has Swift Swim is broken.

That's arrogant to assume that more than the trio are broken, or if the trio as a whole are broken at all for that matter. We find this out by finding the most blatantly broken and banning it, and seeing what we get from there.

I have been over this so many times it's not even funny. If we ban all the Pokemon that are broken under infinite rain, Drizzle will be fucking useless. Basically you end up with a team of 5 good Pokemon plus Politoed. Compare that to a team with 6 good Pokemon. And if one of those 6 good Pokemon is Tyranitar or Hippowdon, every time they switch in you now have a team full of crappy Pokemon. This also means that by banning the abusers, we essentially end up with the same metagame, but we achieve it with a shitton of bans as opposed to only 1.

More assumptions about how banning only what's broken means we're going to over ban. Kind of funny, honestly.

Or we could ban Drizzle...

Oh, so only people you want to argue with are allowed to argue? No one else can call you out on saying something stupid?

Haha thats funny because I am.

 

[TheValkyries]

Because Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops are all of Rain Offense. Good logic.

 

[masterful]

there is a difference between hampering (weakening) which is the best way to handle this and killing (completely removing the viability there of) that would be the effect of a DRIZZLE ban.

That is stupid. Just stupid. There are really no good rain offense pokes without the swift swimmers, and banning Drizzle would still allow for 8-turn rain, which is obviously not broken, yet still potentially very useful

 

[fidgety]

Your logic is flawed. The reason Inconsistent was banned was because it broke the Pokemon that had it. In other words, the abusers. Can everyone get it in their heads that Swift Swim doesn't break crap without Drizzle to activate it infinitely? Also, if by "large encompassing bans" you mean the ban on Inconsistent, every Pokemon that had it was broken, so it wasn't affecting anything that wasn't broken in conjunction with it.

it was banned because it took the battle out of the battler's hands mainly the luck factor was too great.

That's part of it sure, but you clearly have a misunderstanding of Smogon policy...

smogon policy =/= the goal of suspect + shouldn't govern it too much either it's really there so we don't go overboard.

The only time an ability should be banned is if every Pokemon that has it is broken. That way we know for sure that the ability is broken, not the Pokemon that have it. Every Pokemon that had Inconsistent was broken. Every Pokemon that has Drizzle is broken. Not every Pokemon that has Swift Swim is broken.

speaking of flawed logic toad isn't broken by drizzle, there are a couple af ABUSERS that break drizzle namely manaphy + kingdra but drizzle cannot + will nit break toad.


I have been over this so many times it's not even funny. If we ban all the Pokemon that are broken under infinite rain, Drizzle will be fucking useless. Basically you end up with a team of 5 good Pokemon plus Politoed. Compare that to a team with 6 good Pokemon. And if one of those 6 good Pokemon is Tyranitar or Hippowdon, every time they switch in you now have a team full of crappy Pokemon. This also means that by banning the abusers, we essentially end up with the same metagame, but we achieve it with a shitton of bans as opposed to only 1.

most of the keep drizzle + swift swim supporters are onlly proposing the most powerful of the abusers.

Or we could ban Drizzle...

good for you you want to condemn more than half a dozen play-styles for the doings of one of the (heavy offense rain).

Haha thats funny because I am.

right back @ u

edit: @masterful where did i say remove all the swift swimmers i said remove the BROKEN RAIN ABUSERS there is a huge difference.

 

[TheValkyries]

Your logic is flawed. The reason Inconsistent was banned was because it broke the Pokemon that had it. In other words, the abusers.

The ability broke all those that got it, thus it was a broken ability. An ability can't be broken if it doesn't break all of it's users.

Can everyone get it in their heads that Swift Swim doesn't break crap without Drizzle to activate it infinitely?

Can you get into your heads that Drizzle wouldn't be even remotely considered broken if Swift Swim didn't exist, and even then doesn't make every Swift Swimmer broken?

Also, if by "large encompassing bans" you mean the ban on Inconsistent, every Pokemon that had it was broken, so it wasn't affecting anything that wasn't broken in conjunction with it.

No, I wasn't, I was referring to banning Drizzle because it's simpler and more convenient rather than actually banning what's broken.

That's part of it sure, but you clearly have a misunderstanding of Smogon policy...

How so? You're saying that we should attempt at balance by not banning what's broken, and only try to indirectly nerf it to keep it in the metagame?

The only time an ability should be banned is if every Pokemon that has it is broken. That way we know for sure that the ability is broken, not the Pokemon that have it. Every Pokemon that had Inconsistent was broken. Every Pokemon that has Drizzle is broken. Not every Pokemon that has Swift Swim is broken.

How is Politoed REMOTELY broken with Drizzle? What the HELL are you even talking about? The only reason we're talking about banning Drizzle is because a select number of Swift Swimmers are broken in rain, and this permanent rain makes them that much easier to use. It has nothing to do with breaking Politoed.

I have been over this so many times it's not even funny. If we ban all the Pokemon that are broken under infinite rain, Drizzle will be fucking useless. Basically you end up with a team of 5 good Pokemon plus Politoed. Compare that to a team with 6 good Pokemon. And if one of those 6 good Pokemon is Tyranitar or Hippowdon, every time they switch in you now have a team full of crappy Pokemon. This also means that by banning the abusers, we essentially end up with the same metagame, but we achieve it with a shitton of bans as opposed to only 1.

How? How is banning everything broken in Rain the same as banning everything that's good in rain? Your insulting my logic and you assume that every good Pokemon in Rain is broken? Honestly?

Or we could ban Drizzle...

Yeah, if you're too lazy to actually make the correct ban.

Haha thats funny because I am.

It's funny, because you're terrible at it.

 

[Benlisted]

Seriously, can we stop with the insults and actually have a debate without needing to call into question each other's intellect/skill/mother's weight? It doesn't add anything and degrades your point of view from an outside perspective.

 

[Nanoswine]

Because Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops are all of Rain Offense. Good logic.

Ugh

I assume you didn't read my post. Specifically

I have been over this so many times it's not even funny. If we ban all the Pokemon that are broken under infinite rain, Drizzle will be fucking useless. Basically you end up with a team of 5 good Pokemon plus Politoed. Compare that to a team with 6 good Pokemon. And if one of those 6 good Pokemon is Tyranitar or Hippowdon, every time they switch in you now have a team full of crappy Pokemon. This also means that by banning the abusers, we essentially end up with the same metagame, but we achieve it with a shitton of bans as opposed to only 1.

So, yes, by banning all the broken abusers you actually do kill Rain Offense. And I think we all know Rain Stall isn't broken, and the reason nobody uses it is this exact reason: nobody wants to use a team of 5 Pokemon that become crappy the second Drizzle goes down.

EDIT:

Seriously, can we stop with the insults and actually have a debate without needing to call into question each other's intellect/skill/mother's weight? It doesn't add anything and degrades your point of view from an outside perspective.

Good idea.

The ability broke all those that got it, thus it was a broken ability. An ability can't be broken if it doesn't break all of it's users.




Can you get into your heads that Drizzle wouldn't be even remotely considered broken if Swift Swim didn't exist, and even then doesn't make every Swift Swimmer broken?




No, I wasn't, I was referring to banning Drizzle because it's simpler and more convenient rather than actually banning what's broken.




How so? You're saying that we should attempt at balance by not banning what's broken, and only try to indirectly nerf it to keep it in the metagame?




How is Politoed REMOTELY broken with Drizzle? What the HELL are you even talking about? The only reason we're talking about banning Drizzle is because a select number of Swift Swimmers are broken in rain, and this permanent rain makes them that much easier to use. It has nothing to do with breaking Politoed.




How? How is banning everything broken in Rain the same as banning everything that's good in rain? Your insulting my logic and you assume that every good Pokemon in Rain is broken? Honestly?




Yeah, if you're too lazy to actually make the correct ban.




It's funny, because you're terrible at it.

I'm kind of confused lol. Are you arguing that we should ban Swift Swim or the abusers, or that we should ban Drizzle? Because your first statement explains exactly why we can't ban Swift Swim: It doesn't break all of the abusers.

Drizzle is broken under the Support Characteristic: It makes it significantly easier for other Pokemon to sweep. By your logic, we should have banned every Pokemon with a setup move last gen instead of banning Wobbuffet. I know that's an extreme example, but you get what I mean. Banning Drizzle achieves essentially the same outcome in the long run as banning all the broken abusers, but with less bans. That statement satisfactorily answers half of your points.

I never said banning everything broken by Drizzle was the same as banning everything good under Drizzle. What I said was banning Drizzle would have pretty much the same effect on the metagame as banning all it's broken abusers. If you ban Drizzle, you typical rain team has a full team of 6 Pokemon that rely on Rain Dance to be good. If you ban the broken abusers, you have 5 Pokemon that rely on Drizzle to be good, and 1 Politoed who no longer has anything to make broken to balance the fact that you have to carry it. A good example would be the Inconsistent ban: Banning Inconsistent essentially banned the Pokemon who had its' serious usage in OU.