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

[Ulevo]

You effectively LIMIT pokemon instead of banning them. This strictly goes against smogon policy that if a pokemon is broken, it's banned, not limited. That is, restricting a pokemon is worse than banning it, so this would basically be WORSE than just banning all Swift Swim users outright.

This is all outside of the fact that you're restricting things that wouldn't be broken with Swift Swim anyway, effectively leading to "collateral" damage.

Furthermore, offensive rain would be hit fairly hard by the lack of Swift Swim.

I hope you realize how hypocritical you sound right now.

Banning Drizzle limit's said Pokemon in the exact same fashion banning Swift Swim does. The only difference is that by banning Swift Swim, we avoid the risk of other overwhelmingly fast Pokemon dominating with rain, as opposed to eliminating a viable play style.

Not to mention that you're talking about you saying rain would be hit hard by banning Swift Swim when banning Drizzle would be hit rain even harder. I mean, come on now.

The way I see this whole drizzle vs Swift swim issue is...
In 4th Gen Swift swimmers weren't not considered or proven to be over powered..
In 5th Gen, Swift swimmers are being viewed as overpowered by some people

What relevant variable has changed between these two scenarios?... Infinite rain
Therefore if they were not overpowered previously, then why are they overpowered now, when it isn't the swim swimmers themselves that have changed, but another variable that has caused them to be overpowered which in this is case drizzle.

Again, what is the purpose of justifying the why in an already complicated matter when it doesn't achieve the most desirable end result? While trying to place the blame on what the culprit is, when the fact is that without either variable present (Swift Swim and Drizzle) at the same time we wouldn't have this problem, we avoid making the most decisive, simple and beneficial decision.

 

[fidgety]

Big part of the issue with people trying to discuss rain is that its becoming clear here that many people never actually tried a rain dance team in gen 4, the point of why even sweepers would have to carry rain (Kabutops especially) is clear if you consider their speed so that rain can be successfully performed before a taunt - remember this is UU 4th gen so keep in mind the speed tiers fact that there are people who didn't realize why Electrode leads were so popular in rain dance teams in 4th gen pretty much shows how the gap in knowledge in playing rain. So its this discussion really should just stop and be left with those who qualify because frankly I see no reason for this to continue if there are people who don't even understand the basic concept of what infinite rain means compared to 8 turns and why certain speedy sweepers in 4th gen had to carry a damp rock and rain dance that makes the support value of Politoed a complete blessing to rain teams. Yet, the irony of this all is that people who never stuck to playing UU in gen 4 or really tried to use rain dance back then talk about it as if they know because they've used/using/played against a Drizzle team in gen 5 - which as repeated many times is a VERY different play style thanks to infinite rain (with drawbacks being minimized greatly).

there is a reason that ppl are sugesting focusing on the 2 abusers that are most powerful w/ rain so we don't take the cheap way out. since the goal of suspect is to enable as enjoyable + as DIVERSE a meta as possible keeping drizzle allows for maximum diversity since there are many forms of rain based play that really just can't gain a footing in the present meta that aren't viable at all w/o drizzle. is that encouraging diversity if drizzle is banned no. + b4 any1 argues the support aspect again i've said this already the support aspect doesn't apply since it is only offensive rain that is causing issues.

Also keep in mind that Politoed pretty much can be EV'd to take hits from ground or rock STAB Pokemon's because of its typing granting it neutral damage, while Tyranitar/Hippowdon don't have the same luxury with water type Pokemon's STAB.

i like how you present this argument that makes it clear you don't know how a good sand abuse team is built. the core of abusers nearly always favors physical so how do you balance that, by adding a couple special attackers that can put the hurt on rain ideally.

Can't people just stick to looking at specs Latios because its just a joke that its still around given how versatile and powerful that beast is. Heck even without rain we'd still have to deal with the fact that dragons are only threatening one another - that it becomes viable to simply run scarf on your Chomp/Salamence/Ono to revenge kill said Latios/Chomp/Mence/Onokurusu especially with the decline of ice as an offensive type. Thanks to Scizor/Nattorei/Heatran (steel types in general) that threaten part ice types (who are the main viable carriers of ice shard) and with Hidden Power at times being preferred to be fire type thanks to Nattorei. Heck we don't even have good new ice moves introduced, other than the 100% crit one that is basically carried by nothing that has Sniper ~_~. Don't even get started with the new ice types - only Kyuremu (who screams broken seriously why do people underestimate the bulk of this monster - yes he has weaknesses but no sane Scizor/Robushin/Breloom would be sane enough to switch in to this guys attack and at best is dealt with through revenge sure its speed isn't as good as the other dragons but offense wise this is no slouch) and Rotom-F.

ok, i agree latios is an issue but it may or may not have to wait but where are you getting ice declining as an offensive type it is still one of the best offensive types ing the game with all the new dragons i go out of my way to carry two ice moves on my team. + kyurem is weak to so many common offensive types it isn't funny (rock, steel, dragon, + fighting) + stealth rock nor sitting below the base 100 speed tier isn't helping it much either.

 

[Ninja_13]

I hope you realize how hypocritical you sound right now.

Banning Drizzle limit's said Pokemon in the exact same fashion banning Swift Swim does. The only difference is that by banning Swift Swim, we avoid the risk of other overwhelmingly fast Pokemon dominating with rain, as opposed to eliminating a viable play style.

Not to mention that you're talking about you saying rain would be hit hard by banning Swift Swim when banning Drizzle would be hit rain even harder. I mean, come on now.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you haven't even read his posts. I'm not going to argue Xien Zo's points for him, but you should really re-read his posts and see how nonsensical the post I just quoted sounds like (HINT: He doesn't want to ban either Drizzle or Swift Swim). It seems that this misunderstanding of people's arguments is happening a lot right now, especially since most people's arguments are just rehashing the same arguments from earlier in the thread.

I did see two new posts that brought up some interesting points, though.

Hide

In this thread i've read lots of theories about how broken rain is, but i have yet to see a log or some other sort of proof to support such a claim. B4 the Shaymin-S ban, i ran a team with a scarved Shaymin-S and no other water-type resistance or a weather setter, yet i never found it hard to counter drizzle teams. Now i use rain too and i have had only mediocre results with it. In practice, rain is much less threatening than what theory makes it out to be. There are countless ways to beat a drizzle team, even without a member specifically designed for that purpose, such as forcing Kingdra to lock itself in on Outrage or choiced attacks and revenging with a steel, KOing Kabutops with Mach punch, striking Manaphy with an attacker that outspeeds, while Ludicolo loses to any semi-bulky poke not weak to its STABs (Metagross, Latios, Breloom, Zuruzukin) due to its only average offensive capacity. Nattorei can also use any Kingdra as setup fodder to lay down spikes, which hurt toad every time it comes in to renew the rain, so clever switching among Ttar and Natt can stop such teams by itself (a common situation in my experience). Politoad's also a relatively bad pokemon for OU, unlike Ttar or Hippowdon. However, the main issue drizzle teams tend to face is how bad they operate outside their beneficial weather, unlike sun or sandstorm; a dead Politoad usually means GG, as any relatively fast and powerful pokemon (Latios, Gengar, Jolteon), will destroy a core of water-type sweepers. Paralysis also ruins the SS strategy, and some of its most common users just so happen to be nearly perfect to deal with drizzle teams, with Porygon2/Blissey shrugging off any attack Kingdra can throw and Voltlos/Erufuun crippling with priority, while the first has a STAB more often than not lethal for waters and the latter a resistance to surf/thunder. Storm drain Cradily uses any SS sweeper as setup fodder too. Trick Room is a pain as well.

In short, i find rain is overhyped. Unless somebody can provide proof to support the opposite, like a log of a low skilled player with a drizzle team easily defeating a skillful one with a non-weather or sand team, i believe in a metagame with so many competitively viable rain dance counters, drizzle teams are manageable. Trick Room Slowking/ Rankurusu/ Celebi, Sunny Day Chansey/ Blissey, Thunder Wave Gyarados/ Porygon2/ Voltlos/ Erufuun, Hail Kyurem, Water Absorb Suicune, Storm Drain Cradily, Nattorei, Calm Mind Kerudio/ Virizion, scarved Jolteon, Cloud Nine Lickilicky, are all examples of viable pokes which can severely cripple or even 6-0 most drizzle teams by themselves.

Regarding the argument "I must dedicate a teamslot to specifically counter rain teams": this doesn't mean that drizzle is broken. Dedicating a teamslot to counter a single pokemon is definately disturbing and constitutes to Uber status, however by using Nattorei or Virizion you become able to counter an entire playstyle; this is like claiming "stall is broken, because i must dedicate a teamslot to a wallbreaker". If a single pokemon (like Nattorei) or a single move (like Sunny Day on Chansey) allows you to essentially destroy an entire playstyle, then it might not be a bad idea to dedicate a team/moveslot to it.

Assessment: Drizzle is imo not broken. Gen 5 brought infinite rain in OU, but it also brought some near-perfect counters to accompany it. Banning Drizzle will not balance the metagame at all, it will just make sand the prominent weather and next suspect round people will start searching for other threats to ban.

Hide

Right, several things to say:

1: All those trashing Floatzel, bear in mind it has Base 115 Speed, which makes it outspeed almost anything which isn't boosted, Base 105 Attack, Bulk Up, and Brick Break. Yeah. Switch your Tyranitar into Floatzel, and then watch as you lose your inducer, Poli switches back in, and Rain dominates.

Floatzel @ Life Orb
252 Attack, 252 Speed, 4 Def
- Waterfall
- Brick Break
- Bulk Up
- Coverage Move/Baton Pass

Bulk Up if you get a free turn, and all of a sudden, Floatzel isn't so frail anymore. Brick Break will OHKO Tyranitar, no questions asked, so switching him in is not an option, while Hippowdon won't like Waterfalls, nor does he like Politoad.

So stop saying the non-used weather abusers can't be broken, because guess what, they can. [And Floatzel arguably is a better T-Tar counter to any of the common Rain Abusers]

2: Drizzle dosen't need Swift Swim to be broken. Scarfed Starmie spamming what is effectivly a BP 240 move? Or even worse, SPECS Starmie.

DD Gyarados with a Rain boost, so it effectivly starts at +1 in terms of Waterfall?

Removing a weakness from your Steel types, so they don't have to fear a Dragon using Fire Blast?

Scizor having only a x2 weakness to Fire, allowing it to, with the assistance of an Occa Berry, set up even against Fire attacks?

Then there's things like Hydration Vaporeon, which is a pain to take out as it is with the Wish support set, or pokemon who use a water-type coverage move, such as Latios.

CB Azumarill having ANOTHER boost in power to it's Aqua Jet sounds oodles of fun. [Yeah, what is basically an 80 BP priority, with Huge Power and a CB! Great idea!]

Agilty Emploeon starting with an effective Petaya boost in it's Surf/Boil Over/Hydro Pump, and effectivly resisting Fire now? God forbid it's AgilitySub Peteya.

And, of course, removeing the benifits of other weathers.

Hell, any powerful water attacker with STAB + Water Gem + Rain boost is gonna massivly dent ANYTHING without Water Absorb or a x4 Resistance with Hydro Pump.


Drizzle does more than just Swift Swim. We could ban Swift Swim, we could ban the 'Big three' and Manaphy, but then we could easily find Rain breaks any of the above as well, especially if we end up removing Landos/Dory afterwards.

Banning Swift Swim is not the answer. Rain offense has far more to offer, and it will still have brutal power behind it.

The route which will stop anything which could be broken under the rain, which is a massive list, is to just ban the root of the problem, Drizzle.

Sxof has a point in that those who state that Drizzle is broken don't actually give evidence to that fact. While I don't truly believe it isn't broken, that's only because I believe the abusers are broken. Several people have asked others to give a team that doesn't use weather that can deal with Rain teams without crippling themselves against something else, but the burden of proof isn't on people who are against banning Rain, it's on those who do want to ban it. It's just like the burden of proof people had to have during the discussion of whether we wanted an initial banlist.

Raikaria's post brings up several mon's that would be able to step up to make a new Rain offense after the broken mons are gone. So Rain offense wouldn't die, just change in shape. While I disagree with Raikaria's point, I do not know enough to say that those would not be broken, so I won't argue against it. I'll just say that if they are found to be broken, they will be banned like the other broken mons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, although looking at the track records for my posts on this thread, it's likely to be ignored entirely. Which is fine, I guess, just increases my apathy for this entire ordeal.

 

[voodoo pimp]

CB Azumarill having ANOTHER boost in power to it's Aqua Jet sounds oodles of fun. [Yeah, what is basically an 80 BP priority, with Huge Power and a CB! Great idea!]

Nitpick: 40*1.5*1.5*1.5=135, or 90 if you're not counting CB. Of course, that only makes it more ridiculous.

If infinite rain is broken, Swift Swim certainly isn't the only culprit.

 

[Benlisted]

Sxof has a point in that those who state that Drizzle is broken don't actually give evidence to that fact. While I don't truly believe it isn't broken, that's only because I believe the abusers are broken. Several people have asked others to give a team that doesn't use weather that can deal with Rain teams without crippling themselves against something else, but the burden of proof isn't on people who are against banning Rain, it's on those who do want to ban it. It's just like the burden of proof people had to have during the discussion of whether we wanted an initial banlist.

Raikaria's post brings up several mon's that would be able to step up to make a new Rain offense after the broken mons are gone. So Rain offense wouldn't die, just change in shape. While I disagree with Raikaria's point, I do not know enough to say that those would not be broken, so I won't argue against it. I'll just say that if they are found to be broken, they will be banned like the other broken mons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, although looking at the track records for my posts on this thread, it's likely to be ignored entirely. Which is fine, I guess, just increases my apathy for this entire ordeal.

That's a very good point made by Sxof, and it's true that the seems to be little hard evidence presented that Drizzle is broken outside of calcs for Kingdra's 3HKO on Nattorei or whatever. I think that some supporters of banning Drizzle would argue - what sort of evidence should we provide? Perhaps a nigh-unbeatable Rain team, or evidence that a teamstyle is rendered unusable by Drizzle in the form of logs? Just to preempt that inevitable question.

Also, I agree with your own sentiment that Rain Offense would survive but not be broken if its prime abusers were gone. I've mentioned before - almost all Rain teams run at least Kingdra+Ludicolo, and maybe Kabutops too. Speculation on Rain still being broken without perhaps some of these is all well and good, but in reality, unless you test such a team yourself, you cannot say how the meta will handle it. The same goes for my sentiment that it would not be broken, I know, but that doesn't mean we can rely on such predictions entirely to push for the simpler ban of Drizzle, especially under the new suspect testing system which offers us easier ways to test several suspects.

 

[fidgety]

@benlisted + ninja_13 that is exactly what i've been saying for the last 20+ pgs however we should not jump to the pont where we ban all of them @ once but instead to aviod making unnesisary bans just start w/ MANAPHY (any doubters take it ev it like crocune w/ crocune's move-set except swap sleep talk for ice beam or hp electric + tell me that it isn't overpowered) + KINGDRA the only two that are definitively broken in rain.

 

[capefeather]

Honestly, I don't think that any of these posts convinced me of anything, other than maybe Ulevo lately. The back-and-forth of "who's to blame" is just semantics and actually compels me MORE to support the Drizzle / Swift Swim bans over the individual Pokémon bans just for their simplicity. I'm also appalled at the people bringing up nonexistent Pokémon like Luvdisc and Lumineon to further their views. Honestly, that should be a huge warning sign for everybody (not just the people who said it, either). But that's just the example that sticks out the most because I find that all of the sides are very flawed in similar ways, reducing this to politics and semantics, which inevitably leads to the name-calling.

The other main thing that irks me is this continued reference to "Smogon policy" and shaping the wording to one's liking. "Smogon policy" has been blatantly vague and subject to different interpretations for a while now. People talk about the Support Characteristic or the "fewest bans possible" rhetoric, and I don't think that they really understand the motivations for all that.

 

[Ninja_13]

Honestly, I don't think that any of these posts convinced me of anything, other than maybe Ulevo lately. The back-and-forth of "who's to blame" is just semantics and actually compels me MORE to support the Drizzle / Swift Swim bans over the individual Pokémon bans just for their simplicity. I'm also appalled at the people bringing up nonexistent Pokémon like Luvdisc and Lumineon to further their views. Honestly, that should be a huge warning sign for everybody (not just the people who said it, either). But that's just the example that sticks out the most because I find that all of the sides are very flawed in similar ways, reducing this to politics and semantics, which inevitably leads to the name-calling.

This "who to blame" business is because we are trying to determine what we need to do about the situation. It's not just semantics; they argue their points to get a specific thing banned because they believe that specific thing is what is broken. IMO, banning something just for simplicity's sake is not how we should go about things. The thing is, this is a package deal, and no one aspect of it is broken; it is the combination of Drizzle and the Pokemon that abuse it that is broken, and I believe (note I'm not saying that this is the truth, this is just my opinion) that banning the abusers is the most suitable way to try and solve the situation, as it is in line with typical Suspect testing and CAN (not will, I'm not that arrogant as to predict the future) lead to a metagame with more viable options in teambuilding, which I believe to be ideal. A complex problem like this doesn't deserve a forced simple solution just to avoid the real issue.

I believe that the references to Luvdisc and such is because it is the simplest example of something that is affected by Rain that isn't broken by Drizzle. Those who argue it could probably find more OU-worthy examples if they tried hard enough. It's an easy argument against the brokenness of both Drizzle and Swift Swim. Inconsistent, the only ability we have banned, broke Bidoof. Bidoof, the HM slave, of all things. While I have already stated that Inconsistent and Drizzle are not comparable, in this case they are:

- Bidoof is terrible -> Inconsistent breaks Bidoof -> Inconsistent is broken not Bidoof
- Luvdisc is terrible -> Drizzle doesn't break Luvdisc -> Drizzle does break other Pokemon -> Other variables must factor for Drizzle to break others
- Luvdisc is terrible -> Swift Swim doesn't break Luvdisc -> Swift Swim does break other Pokemon -> Other variables must factor for Swift Swim to break others

Simple logic. Unless my fundamental understanding of logic is wrong or misapplied, in which case I will refrain from posting again to reevaluate my ability to adequately reason.

 

[Nanoswine]

All right, it seems like this thread is following the same pattern as the last time I checked it except for Ulevo, who is actually bringing up some pretty good points.

Why not ban Swift Swim?

You guys have three options:

1: Ban Drizzle
2: Ban Swift Swim
3: Ban the Pokemon that abuse Drizzle

Consider those options for a moment.

If you choose option 3, you're essentially losing 2-3 (or however many you remove) competitively viable Pokemon from your roster of choices, when banning the ability would preserve these Pokemon as available. You also run the risk of, as some of you have pointed out, having lesser Swift Swim users rise up to fill the spots left behind by those you banned and the entire mess starts all over again.

If you choose option 1, you're limiting the use of many Pokemon that enjoy the benefits of rain, as well as downsizing or outright eliminating a viable play style. Yes, Rain Dance and Damp Rock are alternatives, but not ones that are competitively viable by comparison to what is already available in OU outside of rain. If you need any proof of this, look at Gen IV and the rate at which Rain Dance was used, then compare it to the overwhelming amount of new threats we have this generation. Yeah.

If you choose option 2, you effectively reduce the power rain teams have without banning any Pokemon (more to choose from, 1+), and you help to preserve a play style that may comfortably sit in the OU tier.

I'm going to use your 3 choices, and explain why I think banning Drizzle is the best plan of action. If we make any attempt to balance weather, there will be about as much reason to use Drizzle as there would be to use Rain Dance. My logic hinges on three assumptions:

1) Politoed, as an individual Pokemon, is not an asset to your team (in other words, "OU Material") aside from providing infinite rain.
2) When we finally balance weather out, all Pokemon (and Abilities) that are proved to be broken under infinite weather will have been banned.
3) The majority of available rain abusers require Rain to be up to be "OU Material."

If we follow choice 1 (banning Drizzle), Rain as a weather is no longer used competitively, although you can still run a Rain Dance team with Swift Swimmers, which sort of preserves the playstyle of Rain Offense. Rain Stall dies, but no major loss there (as I will explain later). The reason Rain Dance teams aren't used competitively is that it is difficult to keep Rain up, and if you don't, most of your Rain abusers are no longer "OU Material." This is important.

If we follow choice 2 (banning Swift Swim), infinite Rain is still available. However, any playstyle abusing Drizzle is only as good, if not worse that Rain Dance teams. Why, you ask? Well, since Politoed on it's own is not "OU Material," and most of your team relies on Drizzle being up to be "OU Material" themselves, even if battle conditions are in your favor, you are essentially fighting with a 5-man team. This is exactly why nobody uses Rain Stall. Sure Parasect is an excellent subseeder under Drizzle. But it isn't broken under rain like some Swift Swimmers (and arguable Manaphy) are in order to counterbalance Politoed's poor performance as a Pokemon. And the second Rain goes down, it's dead weight.

If we follow choice 3, the same thing happens: with no more broken Pokemon to balance out Politoed, there will be no reason to waste a teamslot for it just to support a team that becomes largely useless if Rain goes down.

A lot of people say banning Drizzle would eliminate a valid, competitive playstyle. The thing is, once weather is balanced, Rain will no longer be a competitive playstyle, no matter what approach we take. Who would pick a team that relies on a certain battle condition to have only 5 good members when you can build a 6-man team that performs well under common battle conditions? Therefore, I support a ban on Drizzle. This is not because it is "who to blame," but because it solves the problem of Rain with the fewest possible bans. And I do believe that that is a correct usage of that "rhetoric."

 

[capefeather]

IMO, banning something just for simplicity's sake is not how we should go about things. The thing is, this is a package deal, and no one aspect of it is broken; it is the combination of Drizzle and the Pokemon that abuse it that is broken, and I believe (note I'm not saying that this is the truth, this is just my opinion) that banning the abusers is the most suitable way to try and solve the situation, as it is in line with typical Suspect testing and CAN (not will, I'm not that arrogant as to predict the future) lead to a metagame with more viable options in teambuilding, which I believe to be ideal.

I don't really care that you have this opinion. What I'm talking about is people repeating fundamentally different views as if this will somehow sway opposing fundamentally different views to their side.

The thing that I don't like about the Luvdisc argument is that Luvdisc effectively doesn't exist in OU. For this reason, I could come up with, or even make up, any contrived hypothetical to "prove" or "disprove" a point and it would be at least as valid. The other thing is that you're using the statement

1. {Ability} breaks {otherwise bad Pokémon} => {Ability} is broken

to describe Inconsistent, but when applying it to Drizzle, the natural thing to do is to claim

2. {Ability} does not break [otherwise bad Pokémon] => {Ability} is not broken

and though you didn't make that certain conclusion, had you done so it would have been an obvious fallacy because 2. is the converse of 1. so it does not follow from 1. So really, the premise of 2. doesn't demonstrate anything other than the uncertainty that was the whole point of this undertaking.

If it does so happen that some Swift Swimmers other than the eternally bad ones aren't broken but still viable, then that is the only scenario in which banning Swift Swim and banning the abusers aren't essentially equivalent.

 

[Ninja_13]

3) The majority of available rain abusers require Rain to be up to be "OU Material."

That's a pretty big assumption to make there. Have Zapdos, Empoleon, Gyarados, Starmie, Rotom-W, Scizor, Suicune, Jolteon, and others suddenly become "not OU material"? This assumption loses ground when you realize that "Pokemon that abuse rain" is not just "Pokemon that have abilities that work under rain" but also "Pokemon that can utilize an extra STAB for Water attacks, 100% accurate Thunder/Hurricane, extra Fire resist, and lack of Sand, Sun and Hail, among others".

And before you say, "well, then why not just use a normal team instead of burdening yourself with Politoed", I will just say that this is why other weather teams work; they use what they have to their advantage. The only difference between Rain teams and other weather teams is that Politoed is weaker than the other inducers; hell, he could be a better asset to Rain teams than Ninetales and Abomasnow are to Sun and Hail (that last bit's speculation on my part, you can ignore it if you feel otherwise)

This is also assuming that Politoed is not OU material. The thing is, there's really no such thing as "OU material"; if enough people use Politoed solely for Drizzle, then Politoed becomes OU. Simple. Politoed's niche is bringing Drizzle to OU; if that's all he is, then so be it. It's still his niche.

Finally, I'm still not sure where this "fewest bans" thing came from. If someone could point it out for me, I would appreciate it, because it's not in the Smogon philosophy I found on-site. Regardless, I feel that banning something that isn't broken solely for simplicity and the fewest bans isn't what we should be doing. We should be banning things when they are broken, and Drizzle CANNOT be broken in and of itself. Maybe it fits under the Support Characteristic, but the fact is, Drizzle can only provide itself to break other Pokemon; it's not winning the battles, the Pokemon who utilize it are.

EDIT:

I don't really care that you have this opinion. What I'm talking about is people repeating fundamentally different views as if this will somehow sway opposing fundamentally different views to their side.

The thing that I don't like about the Luvdisc argument is that Luvdisc effectively doesn't exist in OU. For this reason, I could come up with, or even make up, any contrived hypothetical to "prove" or "disprove" a point and it would be at least as valid. The other thing is that you're using the statement

1. {Ability} breaks {otherwise bad Pokémon} => {Ability} is broken

to describe Inconsistent, but when applying it to Drizzle, the natural thing to do is to claim

2. {Ability} does not break [otherwise bad Pokémon] => {Ability} is not broken

and though you didn't make that certain conclusion, had you done so it would have been an obvious fallacy because 2. is the converse of 1. so it does not follow from 1. So really, the premise of 2. doesn't demonstrate anything other than the uncertainty that was the whole point of this undertaking.

If it does so happen that some Swift Swimmers other than the eternally bad ones aren't broken but still viable, then that is the only scenario in which banning Swift Swim and banning the abusers aren't essentially equivalent.

Ah, ok, I understand where you are coming from. I've also grown tired of the repeating arguments (though from my posts, maybe that's hypocritical of me)

I can also see where you're coming from there.

Thank you for pointing that out. Would this logic chain be better, or worse?

1. Pokemon A is terrible -> Ability A is the only new thing applied to Pokemon A -> Pokemon A is now broken -> Ability A breaks Pokemon B, C, and D as well -> Ability A is broken
2. Pokemon 1 is terrible -> Ability 1 is the only new thing applied to Pokemon 1 -> Pokemon 1 is still terrible -> Ability 1 breaks Pokemon 2 and 4 but not 3 and 5 -> Other factors or a combination of factors break Pokemon 2 and 4 -> Ability 1 is not broken

Essentially, that may be true, but there's also the possibility that non-Swift Swim Pokemon are also found to be broken. It seems unlikely, but it could be.

 

[Ulevo]

Post.

The problem I have with your commentary is that it seems to undermine the usefulness of both Drizzle and Politoed as a Pokemon. Yes, it's true that Politoed is otherwise UU or NE without Drizzle, but that doesn't meant it can't provide team support effectively. Feraligator being UU in Gen IV can largely be attributed to the fact that Gyarados utterly outclassed it in almost every single way--- it didn't make Feraligator useless, just the inferior option. The idea that you are suggesting that Politoed with Drizzle is inferior to another superior alternative with Rain Dance (with or without Damp Rock included) is more than a little silly.

There are many useful options Politoed has at it's disposal. Being a water type in general is an asset, it has access to Perish Song which not many Pokemon have, and it's has a fair amount of Special Defense.

 

[fidgety]

All right, it seems like this thread is following the same pattern as the last time I checked it except for Ulevo, who is actually bringing up some pretty good points.





I'm going to use your 3 choices, and explain why I think banning Drizzle is the best plan of action. If we make any attempt to balance weather, there will be about as much reason to use Drizzle as there would be to use Rain Dance. My logic hinges on three assumptions:

1) Politoed, as an individual Pokemon, is not an asset to your team (in other words, "OU Material") aside from providing infinite rain.
2) When we finally balance weather out, all Pokemon (and Abilities) that are proved to be broken under infinite weather will have been banned.
3) The majority of available rain abusers require Rain to be up to be "OU Material."

If we follow choice 1 (banning Drizzle), Rain as a weather is no longer used competitively, although you can still run a Rain Dance team with Swift Swimmers, which sort of preserves the playstyle of Rain Offense. Rain Stall dies, but no major loss there (as I will explain later). The reason Rain Dance teams aren't used competitively is that it is difficult to keep Rain up, and if you don't, most of your Rain abusers are no longer "OU Material." This is important.

If we follow choice 2 (banning Swift Swim), infinite Rain is still available. However, any playstyle abusing Drizzle is only as good, if not worse that Rain Dance teams. Why, you ask? Well, since Politoed on it's own is not "OU Material," and most of your team relies on Drizzle being up to be "OU Material" themselves, even if battle conditions are in your favor, you are essentially fighting with a 5-man team. This is exactly why nobody uses Rain Stall. Sure Parasect is an excellent subseeder under Drizzle. But it isn't broken under rain like some Swift Swimmers (and arguable Manaphy) are in order to counterbalance Politoed's poor performance as a Pokemon. And the second Rain goes down, it's dead weight.

If we follow choice 3, the same thing happens: with no more broken Pokemon to balance out Politoed, there will be no reason to waste a teamslot for it just to support a team that becomes largely useless if Rain goes down.

A lot of people say banning Drizzle would eliminate a valid, competitive playstyle. The thing is, once weather is balanced, Rain will no longer be a competitive playstyle, no matter what approach we take. Who would pick a team that relies on a certain battle condition to have only 5 good members when you can build a 6-man team that performs well under common battle conditions? Therefore, I support a ban on Drizzle. This is not because it is "who to blame," but because it solves the problem of Rain with the fewest possible bans. And I do believe that that is a correct usage of that "rhetoric."

ok i see your issue (finally) you are misasociating effective with broken:
kingdra is effective without rain pema-rain, it is broken with.
poliwrath is nothing special without perma-rain, it is effective with.
manaphy is nothing special without rain, but borderline broken with regular rain, absolutely broken with perma-rain.
omastar isn't anything special without perma-rain is effective with.

 

[Nanoswine]

That's a pretty big assumption to make there. Have Zapdos, Empoleon, Gyarados, Starmie, Rotom-W, Scizor, Suicune, Jolteon, and others suddenly become "not OU material"? This assumption loses ground when you realize that "Pokemon that abuse rain" is not just "Pokemon that have abilities that work under rain" but also "Pokemon that can utilize an extra STAB for Water attacks, 100% accurate Thunder/Hurricane, extra Fire resist, and lack of Sand, Sun and Hail, among others".

I said the majority of abusers, as in Swift Swimmers, Hydration users, etc. Also, while Zapdos, Gyarados and friends are not part of this majority, any set built with Rain in mind will be much weaker without Rain than most sets built without Rain in mind will be in Rain.

And before you say, "well, then why not just use a normal team instead of burdening yourself with Politoed", I will just say that this is why other weather teams work; they use what they have to their advantage. The only difference between Rain teams and other weather teams is that Politoed is weaker than the other inducers; hell, he could be a better asset to Rain teams than Ninetales and Abomasnow are to Sun and Hail (that last bit's speculation on my part, you can ignore it if you feel otherwise)

Ninetales and Abomasnow are less of an asset to their team than Politoed is. That aside, Tyranitar and Hippowdon are far more of an asset to their team then Politoed is, as it's role is largely outclassed by the Pokemon that are likely to be run with it.

This is also assuming that Politoed is not OU material. The thing is, there's really no such thing as "OU material"; if enough people use Politoed solely for Drizzle, then Politoed becomes OU. Simple. Politoed's niche is bringing Drizzle to OU; if that's all he is, then so be it. It's still his niche.

By OU material, I meant that Politoed is not as "good" as other Pokemon in OU. It doesn't hit as hard, it doesn't take hits as well, it's not particularly fast, etc. Politoed doesn't have a niche, Drizzle does.

Finally, I'm still not sure where this "fewest bans" thing came from. If someone could point it out for me, I would appreciate it, because it's not in the Smogon philosophy I found on-site. Regardless, I feel that banning something that isn't broken solely for simplicity and the fewest bans isn't what we should be doing. We should be banning things when they are broken, and Drizzle CANNOT be broken in and of itself. Maybe it fits under the Support Characteristic, but the fact is, Drizzle can only provide itself to break other Pokemon; it's not winning the battles, the Pokemon who utilize it are.

IIRC, it's somewhere is Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame. But I think it just follows logically that if a certain outcome is achievable by different means, whichever changes the game we play least should be the one we pick.

The problem I have with your commentary is that it seems to undermine the usefulness of both Drizzle and Politoed as a Pokemon. Yes, it's true that Politoed is otherwise UU or NE without Drizzle, but that doesn't meant it can't provide team support effectively. Feraligator being UU in Gen IV can largely be attributed to the fact that Gyarados utterly outclassed it in almost every single way--- it didn't make Feraligator useless, just the inferior option. The idea that you are suggesting that Politoed with Drizzle is inferior to another superior alternative with Rain Dance (with or without Damp Rock included) is more than a little silly.

There are many useful options Politoed has at it's disposal. Being a water type in general is an asset, it has access to Perish Song which not many Pokemon have, and it's has a fair amount of Special Defense.

Perish song is the only thing that really sets it apart. And it does matter that it is largely outclassed, more often than not by things on the same team as it! I think I should have brought up this point as well: Once OU is balanced so nothing is broken, if the other 5 members of your team still perform well outside of Rain there is no reason to use Politoed over one of the many other options that outclass it. And if they don't perform well outside of rain, you run the major risk of TTar or Hippowdon coming in and making them dead weight.

EDIT:

ok i see your issue (finally) you are misasociating effective with broken:
kingdra is effective without rain pema-rain, it is broken with.
poliwrath is nothing special without perma-rain, it is effective with.
manaphy is nothing special without rain, but borderline broken with regular rain, absolutely broken with perma-rain.
omastar isn't anything special without perma-rain is effective with.

Actually, that's exactly my point. Once everything that is broken with perma-rain is banned, all the abusers that are left will be at best effective.

 

[DahliaSky]

I don't really care that you have this opinion. What I'm talking about is people repeating fundamentally different views as if this will somehow sway opposing fundamentally different views to their side.

The thing that I don't like about the Luvdisc argument is that Luvdisc effectively doesn't exist in OU. For this reason, I could come up with, or even make up, any contrived hypothetical to "prove" or "disprove" a point and it would be at least as valid. The other thing is that you're using the statement

1. {Ability} breaks {otherwise bad Pokémon} => {Ability} is broken

to describe Inconsistent, but when applying it to Drizzle, the natural thing to do is to claim

2. {Ability} does not break [otherwise bad Pokémon] => {Ability} is not broken

and though you didn't make that certain conclusion, had you done so it would have been an obvious fallacy because 2. is the converse of 1. so it does not follow from 1. So really, the premise of 2. doesn't demonstrate anything other than the uncertainty that was the whole point of this undertaking.

If it does so happen that some Swift Swimmers other than the eternally bad ones aren't broken but still viable, then that is the only scenario in which banning Swift Swim and banning the abusers aren't essentially equivalent.

More like

{Ability} creates a situation where {Not Broken Pokemon} can be used in a broken manner => {Ability}

"Broken manner" being a set of crucial things that people seem to be forgetting!
1)Rain Dance can be taunted, drizzle is immune.
2)Swift Swim users are commonly forced to run damp rock/rain dance over life orb if drizzle isn't involved. This cut down on moveset sizes and power a lot.
3)Swift swim users tended to run into the same sets of walls (barring all the new, many much better counters) but they could be stopped easily for the 8 turns by a decent normal team's prediction (they might lose a poke or two, but thats common with any boosted sweeper) but the problem is that in drizzle its not just 1-2 pokes you'll have to sacrifice/counter with to get to the end... you never reach the end, meaning that those 1-2 possible pokes between three opponents turns into 3... or 4... or more unless you have certain pokemon and play with much better prediction than your opponent.

I've said it every time I tell anyone how to play... Momentum is everything, and drizzle gives you free permanent Momentum (meaning you are the one forcing the opponent to make predictions and plays, and you can just sling super fast moves over and over, switching to a counter and back whenever you please).

 

[fidgety]

I said the majority of abusers, as in Swift Swimmers, Hydration users, etc. Also, while Zapdos, Gyarados and friends are not part of this majority, any set built with Rain in mind will be much weaker without Rain than most sets built without Rain in mind will be in Rain.

ok that is ridiculously presumptuous to say set a is 100% better than set b because of factor X.



Ninetales and Abomasnow are less of an asset to their team than Politoed is. That aside, Tyranitar and Hippowdon are far more of an asset to their team then Politoed is, as it's role is largely outclassed by the Pokemon that are likely to be run with it.

the main reason for this is the rain abusers for the most part outclass the equivalent sun abusers this is fixed by shifting the levels of equivalence since manaphy + kingdra are both broken beyond salvation with rain by removing them.


By OU material, I meant that Politoed is not as "good" as other Pokemon in OU. It doesn't hit as hard, it doesn't take hits as well, it's not particularly fast, etc. Politoed doesn't have a niche, Drizzle does.

no drizzle gives toad it's niche because drizzle doesn't have the ability to hold the niche on it's own.

IIRC, it's somewhere is Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame. But I think it just follows logically that if a certain outcome is achievable by different means, whichever changes the game we play least should be the one we pick.

that makes no sense just because it takes the least effort it is the best route that is the LEAST SENSIBLE PREMISE POSSIBLE. sometimes it is the best route, however more often than not it really isn't if you want a DIVERSE META. without drizzle you are seriously reducing the potential max diversity just to get away with in short being lazy.

Perish song is the only thing that really sets it apart. And it does matter that it is largely outclassed, more often than not by things on the same team as it! I think I should have brought up this point as well: Once OU is balanced so nothing is broken, even if the other 5 members of your team still perform well outside of Rain there is no reason to use Politoed over one of the many other options that outclass it.

what else:
hypnosis however unreliable is an option.
swagger
on top of perish song, hydro pump, more bulk than you are realizing and a decent coverage/stall move pool all things considered for a poke that has been ignored as long as it has it isn't that bad.

edit: @nanoswine i was differentiating the 2 broken abusers from two that aren't as broken but could pick up the slack once those are gone without being broken
@above: the momentum in question has to be carried by the team itself so by removing the abusers that allow that momentum to be carried to easily we are balancing rain.

 

[phalanx]

drizzle is fine, it will be fine without kingdra and manaphy, that imo is all that needs to be sent packing, there is plenty for ludi (scarfed u-turners) and kabutops is weak to fighting and frail.
i would rather have rain there, it brings options for team building getting rid of drizzle will just make the metagame MORE sand orientated, i have never seen so much focus blast either

 

[Nanoswine]

post

Saying Zapdos running Thunder for STAB preforms poorly outside of rain when compared to the difference in performance of a Zapdos running Thunderbolt for STAB is not presumptuous.

If Gamageroge (or whatever its name is) had Drizzle, everyone would be running him and nobody would be running Politoed. Drizzle has the niche.

If you're going by diversity, banning Drizzle does not affect the diversity of the metagame as much as banning the abusers individually or Swift Swim as a whole. If we ban the abusers, nobody can use Kingdra outside of Rain, and as I said Rain teams won't be used after you ban the broken abusers, so thats the loss of a Pokemon from the competitive metagame. If we ban Swift Swim, Rain offense dies, and we can't use Kingdra, so there is even less diversity that banning the abusers. If we ban Drizzle, you can still use Kingdra outside of rain and Rain Dance will be about as much a part of the competitive metagame as a "balanced" Drizzle would be.

Politoed is not horrible, but it certainly isn't good. I'd sacrifice Hypnosis and Perish song any day to run Vaporeon or Suicune. Nobody in a competitive mindset should use a Pokemon on their team when there are better Pokemon for the job available to them.

 

[capefeather]

Ability A is the only new thing applied to Pokemon A

Use of the previous generations doesn't really make a sound argument. It can definitely be used to show validity, in that we're pretty certain that a Drizzle ban will make the "trio" not that broken anymore (OVERALL, because I know that people will jump on this) based on previous generation, but beyond that I don't see how it's relevant. The past could have been anything and it wouldn't change what we have now.

{Ability} creates a situation where {Not Broken Pokemon} can be used in a broken manner

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this because you just modified a statement that was applied to Inconsistent.

 

[Arc Tech]

Use of the previous generations doesn't really make a sound argument. It can definitely be used to show validity, in that we're pretty certain that a Drizzle ban will make the "trio" not that broken anymore (OVERALL, because I know that people will jump on this) based on previous generation, but beyond that I don't see how it's relevant. The past could have been anything and it wouldn't change what we have now.I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this because you just modified a statement that was applied to Inconsistent.

Indeed. We could have had drizzle last gen, but no surf/hydro pump. If surf and hydro pump were added this gen and made the trio broken, does that mean that they are to blame?

As for omastar/gorebyss being broken, they need to get off a shell smash (which puts them in danger and makes them vulnerable to priority), and even then they still either lose to nattorei or bulky waters depending on their choice of hidden power. And with sp def investment, they still lose to most bulky waters, albeit crippling them.

 

[DahliaSky]

also fidgety... drizzle is the niche. If only sunkern got drizzle for some absurd reason, it would replace politoed for these reain teams.

Its also extremely hard to justify that a pokemon with 95 atk and satk is completely broken outside of being able to use moves over and over for as long as it pleases. 95 of a stat is normally about halfway down the tier in power on either side (48% down the ladder for atk AND satk (ironically it is beaten by the same amount of pokes on both sides) in gen 4 (thats without pokes like mence and chomp and lati@s)

 

[DahliaSky]

Use of the previous generations doesn't really make a sound argument. It can definitely be used to show validity, in that we're pretty certain that a Drizzle ban will make the "trio" not that broken anymore (OVERALL, because I know that people will jump on this) based on previous generation, but beyond that I don't see how it's relevant. The past could have been anything and it wouldn't change what we have now.I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you're going with this because you just modified a statement that was applied to Inconsistent.

meant as a specification+joke, but i guess that never translates well ;-;

Also, most people feel it is relevant because all of the pokemon being abused are gen 4 pokemon, and not only is the metagame that stopped it all viable and playable, but even more and better counters have been introduced.

I can see where you're comming from, but the problem is that the only change between gen 4 and gen 5 that could cause rain to become so powerful is drizzle. I saw no rain teams sweeping all over in gen 5 before drizzle came out... so if you want that:

Before drizzle came out in gen 5, rain acted and was treated as it was in gen 4. Therefor we can use the stable gen 4 rain meta as one of many reasons why drizzle is the problem, and not just the pokes or swift swim.

 

[Nanoswine]

Before drizzle came out in gen 5, rain acted and was treated as it was in gen 4. Therefor we can use the stable gen 4 rain meta as one of many reasons why drizzle is the problem, and not just the pokes or swift swim.

Even though I don't believe Drizzle should be banned simply because it is the problem, this is a really good reasoning. We know that Swift Swim and Kingdra etc. aren't broken without Drizzle in gen V, but we don't know what the outcome of a ban on Swift Swim or any individual Pokemon.

EDIT: What I meant is we don't already know what a metagame without Swift Swim or the individual Pokemon would look like. All of my arguments are theorymon based on logic, if that wasn't obvious enough -__-

 

[fidgety]

also fidgety... drizzle is the niche. If only sunkern got drizzle for some absurd reason, it would replace politoed for these reain teams.

Its also extremely hard to justify that a pokemon with 95 atk and satk is completely broken outside of being able to use moves over and over for as long as it pleases. 95 of a stat is normally about halfway down the tier in power on either side (48% down the ladder for atk AND satk (ironically it is beaten by the same amount of pokes on both sides) in gen 4 (thats without pokes like mence and chomp and lati@s)

because offensive stats are all kingdra has, oh wait godsend stabs resisted under normal circumstances resisted by 2 pokes (outrage + dragon pulse/double stab waterfall + hydro pump), out of rain 85 speed isn't bad at all in rain it is rediculous, 75/95/95 isn't bad in terms of bulk, a lot of coverage options (especially on special sets), dragon dance for physical sets, water dragon is great defensive typing (2 X4 resists (fire + water both common attacking types) 1 X2 resist (steel another common attacking type) + 1 X2 weakness (dragon + good steels aren't hard to come by).
edit: @above that's not what it sounded like earlier..

 

[TheValkyries]

And on the subject of rain teams. Just fucking ban Drizzle and be done with it. Anyone who played rain in gen 4 can realize that it's the permanent rain that's broken, not any of the swift swimmers. Rain without Drizzle is much harder to pull off successfully.

Harder to use = not broken.

I'll keep that in mind.


===================================

Try doing your calculations with Damp Rock and 3 move movesets... then tell me there aren't any pokes that can stop them. And thats aside from the fact that you can't think of it as the whole set, you have to think for each individual.

Hey, if they're so broken using the life orb sets, why wouldn't abuse the broken sets in rain? For convenience on yourself, so that you don't have to switch to start rain again?

Natt walls kingdra and often carries para, crippling anything that switches in or kingdra if it tries to do anything. This is one example. It may not wall the other two, but skarmory walls kabu, and sdef+ blissey can wall even focus blast ludicolo.

Really? Nattorei can't stay in against either Kabutops or Ludicolo. Kabutops is walled by nothing, he 2HKO's Skarmory with a +2 Waterfall in the Rain. Blissey walls most of rain, but the reason she isn't used is because Kabutops smashes her in the ground with a single turn. If it was honestly this easy to shut down within 8 turns, how is it impossible to shut it down indefinitely?

Damp Rock instead of LO and 3 moves makes a HUGE difference, as well as the fact that when you get walled by a phys/special wall and have to switch you commonly catch a para WHILE wasting a turn.

So because Paralysis cripples sweepers we should run it on every thing that can last more than two hits simply because of rain teams? Especially when Rain teams would theoretically be only 8-turn and magically not broken anymore, right?

There is NO way that swift swim is even near where it is in drizzle. I'll admit that in drizzle with LO they really pack a punch... but the ability to use LO and 4 moves is a huge part of the reason for the OP coverage and damage, as well as the fact that there is no way to taunt the setup and it doesn't take a turn to put up where you can't make a move.

I'm not implying 8-turn is better. In fact, I've never said that once, and even admitted that Drizzle is a FAR superior way to run a rain team. But ease of use doesn't mean something isn't broken. If the trio show up in any kind of Rain, they're still broken. And no problem was solved by the ban on Drizzle.

Edit:
For instance, Ludicolo never really used to carry focus blast. It doesn't have to moveset to cover everything since it has to choose between ice or fighting. And if a LO set is used, it causes the team problems from lack of crucial dancers.

Crucial Dancers? I don't think so. It'd be helpful, and makes the strategy easier, but they aren't necessary.


===================================

Big part of the issue with people trying to discuss rain is that its becoming clear here that many people never actually tried a rain dance team in gen 4

Haha. So because I'm saying that if something's broken in Rain, that it should also logically be broken in Rain, I somehow never played 4th gen.

Good assumption especially considering my most often used team in 4th gen happened to be a Rain team.