np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[Fawfulmk-II]

you can better say it like this:i think that bans are caused on 3 things.
cause it is clear that your opinion isn't what the majority thinks.the majority already has banned things that don't overcentalize,don't allow easy set ups nor they allow easy stall stups(i don't even understand what you are saying but anyway).whcih are these things?evasion raising items,evasion raising moves and ohko moves!

it's not so much for doing overcentralization, but having the potential to. DT and Mini were banned because if allowed, the metagame would be all about having to build teams around countering DT, and since almost every poke can learn the move, it would just be a DT-happy metafest. stall is also a factor for banning back then- could you imagine how bad Stallrein would be if it had DT as well?- and the 2 highest HP pokes in the game and the first ever Magic Guard Poke had access to the +2 minimize, and all 3 could do a combo of Mini/Sub/ Soft and stall all day. SV and SC do niether of these.

Now the major reason you have for them being uncompetitive is because you can't counter by switching. allow me to present: Speed boost. this ability give a +1 boost in speed every turn, can'tt be countered by switching, AND got a poke banned for it! going by your logic, would this not be suspect for uncompetitiveness? free power boost, can't be countered by switch? one user has access to tail glow which does +3 now, another HJK, another is one of the fastest pokes in the game and can baton pass! and it is possible-Moody got banned for similar reasons. yet, only the USER OF THE ABILITY was banned. see my point?

"don't blame the ability: blame the user." that's why everyone is up in arms and making topics and such, because there are similar things as SV and Sc that are more suspect. there are a ton of pokes who can BP DT. anypoke cn hold the hax items(so i kinda see the banning now, to an extent.) but SV and Sc? stuck to the users.

 

[truevillany]

Why would Scarf Chomp be that much of a problem? Outrage locks you in and makes you Steel type bait, and sacrifices power too. Even if it kills something. . .*sees Mamoswine at 68 and Weavile at 75* use Ice Shard! Garchomp can't do everything at once.

As I said before... I dont think that he is that much of a problem for balanced teams or stall teams. When used correctly he can smash through all out offensive teams as a late game cleaner. I dont care if he is steel or not, Lucario doesnt like taking outrages. And yes, if your opponent is terrible and locks themselves into outrage while they know you have one of those two, you have definitely got a free revenge kill. Most good players dont do retarded stuff like that.

Then again, those good players may also have CB scizor being that they know the only things stopping their scarf chomp would be the two pokes you just mentioned (since those two have great synergy anyways)

 

[Innocent Criminal]

Did you even read those links?

I'm not saying you are discussing Garchomp, or that you are not talking about competitiveness. I'm saying you're definition of uncompetitiveness is completely off, and its true definition does not at all back up what you are saying. Weather you are right or wrong about banning them is besides the point. The point is you have no valid argument because the one you are using is based on a false definition.

"I totally understands what you're saying, but you're using one specific word the same way everyone else here have been using it for ages, which does not match the definition from the dictionary, therefore your arguments are all invalids. Reuniclus also can't possibly be a bulky sweeper because he's actually pretty small and can't even hold a broom"

 

[jas61292]

"I totally understands what you're saying, but you're using one specific word the same way everyone else here have been using it for ages, which does not match the definition from the dictionary, therefore your arguments are all invalids. Reuniclus also can't possibly be a bulky sweeper because he's actually pretty small and can't even hold a broom"

OK, that is completely skewing my point. I am saying that his ONLY argument is not at all backed up by facts. If their are other arguments for it, lets hear them, but don't keep repeating the same word which doesn't even support what you are saying.

Your comparisons to Reuniclus are completely invalid because there are other things to back up that statement. If there is any valid argument for a SC SV bam, please, tell me. I would love to hear it. But don't tell me that I am saying that "the definition of a word means you are wrong." I'm just saying you can't use the definition of a word as your only argument when that doesn't even support your point.

And to the whole "using one specific word the same way everyone else here have been using it for ages" thing, there is an entire thread currently trying to define that word. There is no one way people have been using it, because everyone has been using it to support their own opinions. So don't try and act like it was already a defined term and I'm trying to change it, cause that is blatantly untrue.

 

[Downf4ll]

OK, that is completely skewing my point. I am saying that his ONLY argument is not at all backed up by facts. If their are other arguments for it, lets hear them, but don't keep repeating the same word which doesn't even support what you are saying.

Your comparisons to Reuniclus are completely invalid because there are other things to back up that statement. If there is any valid argument for a SC SV bam, please, tell me. I would love to hear it. But don't tell me that I am saying that "the definition of a word means you are wrong." I'm just saying you can't use the definition of a word as your only argument when that doesn't even support your point.

And to the whole "using one specific word the same way everyone else here have been using it for ages" thing, there is an entire thread currently trying to define that word. There is no one way people have been using it, because everyone has been using it to support their own opinions. So don't try and act like it was already a defined term and I'm trying to change it, cause that is blatantly untrue.

His point was that the dictionary definition isn't necessarily the only one used in situations such as gaming, because words can mean entirely different things based on context. In fact, his example of Reuniclus was perfect.

Now, I agree with you on the fact that "uncompetitiveness is subjective", but in something like competitive battling, everything is subjective, because everything is based on personal experience. No point in saying "this isn't objective" when nothing is, really.

Now would you like a (hopefully) relevant argument to why SC or SV should be banned with their respective weathers? Here's how I see it:


1. Sand Veil and Snow Cloak brings unecessary luck to the metagame. Please don't give me any crap about king's rock and quick claw; they are utterly useless (unlike these abilities). In fact, you'd be hypocritical in mentioning them since you wanted an argument that was relevant.

2. There is no "risk vs. reward" factor when considering SV and SC. There is no workaround, and no way to outplay. A strategy that cannot be countered without relying solely luck creates, in my opinion, an undesirable metagame. All moves/items/abilities that cause these situations ends up creating the same situations.

3. All other factors that can affect accuracy, namely hustle and moves without 100 accuracy, are a choice by the user. The user can scream hax all they want when their Focus Miss misses, but in the end it's their fault they used that move. They had control, and they made a calculated decision. There is none of that when dealing with SV and SC. When people scream hax when their ice beam misses, can you say it was the user's fault? "you brought this garchomp upon yourself"? Not really. In the end, I believe that there would only be benefit from SV and SC being rendered unusable; every user of these abilities either already have a (possibly superior) alternative, or will get one sooner or later. There would be nothing that people favour getting removed; unless you're telling me that the people against this ban are doing so because they actually want it in game, and not because they just don't care?

I hope that was good enough for you (internet = no tone, so I'll tell you right now that I'm being sincere).

 

[jas61292]

His point was that the dictionary definition isn't necessarily the only one used in situations such as gaming, because words can mean entirely different things based on context. In fact, his example of Reuniclus was perfect.

Now, I agree with you on the fact that "uncompetitiveness is subjective", but in something like competitive battling, everything is subjective, because everything is based on personal experience. No point in saying "this isn't objective" when nothing is, really.

Now would you like a (hopefully) relevant argument to why SC or SV should be banned with their respective weathers? Here's how I see it:


1. Sand Veil and Snow Cloak brings unecessary luck to the metagame. Please don't give me any crap about king's rock and quick claw; they are utterly useless (unlike these abilities). In fact, you'd be hypocritical in mentioning them since you wanted an argument that was relevant.

2. There is no "risk vs. reward" factor when considering SV and SC. There is no workaround, and no way to outplay. A strategy that cannot be countered without relying solely luck creates, in my opinion, an undesirable metagame. All moves/items/abilities that cause these situations ends up creating the same situations.

3. All other factors that can affect accuracy, namely hustle and moves without 100 accuracy, are a choice by the user. The user can scream hax all they want when their Focus Miss misses, but in the end it's their fault they used that move. They had control, and they made a calculated decision. There is none of that when dealing with SV and SC. When people scream hax when their ice beam misses, can you say it was the user's fault? "you brought this garchomp upon yourself"? Not really. In the end, I believe that there would only be benefit from SV and SC being rendered unusable; every user of these abilities either already have a (possibly superior) alternative, or will get one sooner or later. There would be nothing that people favour getting removed; unless you're telling me that the people against this ban are doing so because they actually want it in game, and not because they just don't care?

I hope that was good enough for you (internet = no tone, so I'll tell you right now that I'm being sincere).

Thank you. That was more of what I was looking for. And, while I do not entirely agree, at least I can see the reasoning.

I think the main issue here that causes the disagreement, however, is nothing to do with the abilities themselves. It is about the concept of luck vs skill. The argument you provided basically says that these abilities are bad because they increase luck, which decreases the importance of skill. This is one sentiment I have been and always will be against. I believe skill to be the ability to understand luck and use it to your advantage, or at the very least work around it.

It is my opinion that a skilled player should take these abilities into account when building teams. There plenty of ways to beat them, and saying that the fact that they can make you miss means skill is less important is not something I would agree with. The truely skilled player will be prepared for any opponent and should be able to beat them.

The only times I believe something should be banned are if it:
1) Severely reduces the variety of viable things in the metagame (over-centralization)
2) Has no viable counters

I do not believe either of these things describe Sand Veil and Snow Cloak, so I believe a ban is completely unnecessary.

 

[TheValkyries]

1. Sand Veil and Snow Cloak brings unecessary luck to the metagame. Please don't give me any crap about king's rock and quick claw; they are utterly useless (unlike these abilities). In fact, you'd be hypocritical in mentioning them since you wanted an argument that was relevant.

"Here's the way I see it, and I will ignore any contradiction I make in my logic, because that isn't relevant."

If you're saying unnecessary luck is a problem for the competitive meta-game, you're going to have to take a long hard look at whether or not you even want to play Pokemon anymore, since "unnecessary luck" exists every three turns. 20% evasion is less than 27% chance to flinch from Rock Slide/Waterfall, 21% chance to Confuse/Paralyze on Hurricane/Thunder without weather. 19% chance to crit once over two turns of using Stone Edge, etc. These are common brands of "unnecessary luck," in the meta-game that occur more or as often as a SV/SC miss yet still aren't talked about since they don't have this stigma of "evasion" on them. In reality SV and SC are really not that bad in comparison to the rest of the meta-game.

2. There is no "risk vs. reward" factor when considering SV and SC. There is no workaround, and no way to outplay. A strategy that cannot be countered without relying solely luck creates, in my opinion, an undesirable metagame. All moves/items/abilities that cause these situations ends up creating the same situations.

Blissey switches in on a Glaceon with Snow Cloak in the hail. Glaceon just got completely countered without relying on luck even though it had Snow Cloak.

These abilities don't cause uncounterable strategies, ONE Pokemon with that ability did, because it's so excessively powerful, that a single miss is game changing. If we talk about anything at all we should be talking about Garchomp, not SV/SC.

Now, you may say, "But Glaceon/Cacturne/Mamoswine is able to sweep another team on a key miss that is directly the result of Snow Cloak, so the same situation occurs." The problem is, that's like saying, "Hey, I think Lucario is broken because I swept a few unprepared teams with him." Pulling off a successful strategy does not make a Pokemon/ability broken or uncompetitive.

3. All other factors that can affect accuracy, namely hustle and moves without 100 accuracy, are a choice by the user. The user can scream hax all they want when their Focus Miss misses, but in the end it's their fault they used that move. They had control, and they made a calculated decision. There is none of that when dealing with SV and SC. When people scream hax when their ice beam misses, can you say it was the user's fault? "you brought this garchomp upon yourself"? Not really. In the end, I believe that there would only be benefit from SV and SC being rendered unusable; every user of these abilities either already have a (possibly superior) alternative, or will get one sooner or later. There would be nothing that people favour getting removed; unless you're telling me that the people against this ban are doing so because they actually want it in game, and not because they just don't care?

Consider Stone-Edge. It has an increased chance to crit, which is a choice by the user. That choice could then lead to a situation where they would win when they shouldn't have. By your logic, we should also ban high critical chance moves because as opponents, we have no way of making sure they can't crit, in the same way we should ban SV/SC.


We really need to be realistic when it comes to banning abilities/moves. It should be a last resort for when the problem is so large and out of hand that we cannot solve it any other way in a realistic fashion. Double Team and Minimize was like this, as it was too wide spread and too powerful to simply ban individual Pokemon. SV/SC, is neither widespread, nor is it too powerful. It's only a valuable asset for one Pokemon to extensively abuse.

 

[Pallas Athena]

Alright, I rethought old arguments to fit the actual tone of the topic. My first question though, is one of precedent. Despite the love of Smogonites to claim we can ban something as being uncompetitive, prior to the HAX item ban last round, no one did. We banned things because, and only because, they were overcentralized or broken. People are going to cite Evasion Clause and OHKO clause here, to which I will respond accordingly. First off, evasion as a boosting move can do absolutely nothing, or it can sweep a team "well prepared" for it, to the point where only a few checks exist for a Minimize Pokemon allowed to reach +2 evasion. As for OHKO moves, the fact that something has a 35% chance to automatically KO something is slightly broken in a sense that isn't just "uncompetitive." As another precedent, there has never been a ban on a Pokemon for being uncompetitive in a way that was not overcentralizing or broken. Sure, Chomp and Inconsistent involved luck, but they were good in ways that were deemed broken, not just uncompetitive. The idea of expanding clauses that could theoretically ban a Pokemon but have never actually been used for those purposes is entirely without precedent. There's a reason it took three generations to ban HAX items, and the fact that the force of precedent was disregarded over reasoning from the clauses of the same people who made the precedents that were violated marks a paradigm shift in policy. Also, banning an ability for uncompetitive reasons does not in any ways relate to a clause. Clauses banned minor aspects of the game (and weren't exactly made due to solely "uncompetitive reasons"). Banning an ability is a soft ban on several Pokemon; a far larger change than any clause has ever created. If we want a stable metagame, it might help to look at the reasons for bans and clauses in past metagames. Or we could arbitrarily pursue things taken from policies that have never applied to bans. Once again, just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

 

[Downf4ll]

"Here's the way I see it, and I will ignore any contradiction I make in my logic, because that isn't relevant."

What have I possibly done to garner such hostility? Calm down :/

If you're saying unnecessary luck is a problem for the competitive meta-game, you're going to have to take a long hard look at whether or not you even want to play Pokemon anymore, since "unnecessary luck" exists every three turns. 20% evasion is less than 27% chance to flinch from Rock Slide/Waterfall, 21% chance to Confuse/Paralyze on Hurricane/Thunder without weather. 19% chance to crit once over two turns of using Stone Edge, etc. These are common brands of "unnecessary luck," in the meta-game that occur more or as often as a SV/SC miss yet still aren't talked about since they don't have this stigma of "evasion" on them. In reality SV and SC are really not that bad in comparison to the rest of the meta-game.

None of those are unecessary, simply because flinching, paralysis, and confusion (to a lesser extent) has been an integral part of the metagame. Evasion hasn't, so why should we keep some instances of evasion when we have banned all others? It just seems like an inconsistency, which is unnecessary. If I didn't make that point clear, I apologize; I'm not very good at stating my thoughts.

Blissey switches in on a Glaceon with Snow Cloak in the hail. Glaceon just got completely countered without relying on luck even though it had Snow Cloak.

These abilities don't cause uncounterable strategies, ONE Pokemon with that ability did, because it's so excessively powerful, that a single miss is game changing. If we talk about anything at all we should be talking about Garchomp, not SV/SC.

You have me there, somewhat, since despite my blanket terms I really am only talking about Garchomp. But, I doubt either of us have even considered UU or NU. I mean you don't exactly see Blissey running rampant there, just saying. A ban like this applies to ALL tiers, not just OU; and this might just be ignorance on my part, but I don't exactly know where to post a ban that I feel should apply to all tiers. Like evasion. Oh wait.

Now, you may say, "But Glaceon/Cacturne/Mamoswine is able to sweep another team on a key miss that is directly the result of Snow Cloak, so the same situation occurs." The problem is, that's like saying, "Hey, I think Lucario is broken because I swept a few unprepared teams with him." Pulling off a successful strategy does not make a Pokemon/ability broken or uncompetitive.

This entire argument has been established with the fact that you cannot prepare for Sand Veil or Snow Cloak, since whether you switch different weather or not, the poke has already done it's job.

Consider Stone-Edge. It has an increased chance to crit, which is a choice by the user. That choice could then lead to a situation where they would win when they shouldn't have. By your logic, we should also ban high critical chance moves because as opponents, we have no way of making sure they can't crit, in the same way we should ban SV/SC.

Except I never said that unskilled players should never win against more skilled players. I just said evasion makes it way too uncontrollable. Plus, stone edge also has a 1 in 5 chance of missing, so forgive me for my laziness to do the math, but doesn't that mean the crit chance is about 10%? Not very game breaking, especially since crits have been in the metagame since forever (and SV and SC is twice that anyway).

We really need to be realistic when it comes to banning abilities/moves. It should be a last resort for when the problem is so large and out of hand that we cannot solve it any other way in a realistic fashion. Double Team and Minimize was like this, as it was too wide spread and too powerful to simply ban individual Pokemon. SV/SC, is neither widespread, nor is it too powerful. It's only a valuable asset for one Pokemon to extensively abuse.

I guess you're right there. While I believe that SV and SC should be banned, I have to admit that it isn't exactly out of hand. The point of what you replied to though is that we'd be better off without it, especially since the pokes that have the abilities get different ones.

Thank you. That was more of what I was looking for. And, while I do not entirely agree, at least I can see the reasoning.

I think the main issue here that causes the disagreement, however, is nothing to do with the abilities themselves. It is about the concept of luck vs skill. The argument you provided basically says that these abilities are bad because they increase luck, which decreases the importance of skill. This is one sentiment I have been and always will be against. I believe skill to be the ability to understand luck and use it to your advantage, or at the very least work around it.

It is my opinion that a skilled player should take these abilities into account when building teams. There plenty of ways to beat them, and saying that the fact that they can make you miss means skill is less important is not something I would agree with. The truely skilled player will be prepared for any opponent and should be able to beat them.

The only times I believe something should be banned are if it:
1) Severely reduces the variety of viable things in the metagame (over-centralization)
2) Has no viable counters

I do not believe either of these things describe Sand Veil and Snow Cloak, so I believe a ban is completely unnecessary.

You're entirely right dude; you believe the luck introduced by SV and SC can be worked around; and I don't. I guess that just means we should stop arguing, since it will only go in circles from here.

This was probably much, much easier to understand now that we actually explained our reasoning eh?

Well, I guess this means I don't really have a point in arguing with you, or anyone else for that matter (since you guys probably all think the same thing). This doesn't mean that I'll stop advocating the ban though; I'll just hope that when Rough Skin Chomp comes out people will use him too.

Or I'll just play UU and hope Abomasnow goes BL. Either way works I guess.

 

[alexwolf]

More like "if". And by if I mean a non-retarded Chomp that can be both genders.

Ok, so no one wants to combo ban SV + Sandstorm. No one wants to outright ban the abilities (which would be lame). No one wants to ban Garchomp...I guess the only other option is to ride the waves and live with it.

Also I could've sworn DW Snorunt was released.

who said that noone wants to combo ban sv and sandstorm?

com·pet·i·tive/kəmˈpetətiv Adjective

1. Of, relating to, or characterized by competition.
2. Having or displaying a strong desire to be more successful than others: "she had a competitive streak".


un-

1. a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns


Therefore

Uncompetitive =

1. Not characterized by competition
2. Not having or displaying a strong desire to be more successful than others


Obviously Pokemon is a competitive game, so definition one cannot apply.
The second one is exactly what I have been talking about. Unless you are saying that people using these strategies do not want to win, you are using the word wrong. Its just a fact.

is adding an ability that relies purely on luck competitive?especially when this ability has the potential to give an unfair advantage to a battler and doesn't have enough viable counters?i don't think so...
making the game more luck based without introducing anything that encourages skill is not characterized by competition!see how what i said fits under the term?

I never said the characteristics were there to tell us what to do. In fact I said the opposite. They are there to let us know the things we should be looking for, not how we should achieve them.

And I do not know how good a strategy those would be, cause I can't use them. As I would like to believe people are rational with their bans, that is the only logical explanation that fits. For if that is not true, then there is no reason for them to be banned in the first place.

that's true!they weren't tested!and do you know why?'cause uncompetitive stuff dan't want testing to prove worthy of a ban...
if these moves were indeed broken wouldn't we have let them to prove us so?have we ever banned something 'cause of brokeness without any test?no!

it's not so much for doing overcentralization, but having the potential to. DT and Mini were banned because if allowed, the metagame would be all about having to build teams around countering DT, and since almost every poke can learn the move, it would just be a DT-happy metafest. stall is also a factor for banning back then- could you imagine how bad Stallrein would be if it had DT as well?- and the 2 highest HP pokes in the game and the first ever Magic Guard Poke had access to the +2 minimize, and all 3 could do a combo of Mini/Sub/ Soft and stall all day. SV and SC do niether of these.

Now the major reason you have for them being uncompetitive is because you can't counter by switching. allow me to present: Speed boost. this ability give a +1 boost in speed every turn, can'tt be countered by switching, AND got a poke banned for it! going by your logic, would this not be suspect for uncompetitiveness? free power boost, can't be countered by switch? one user has access to tail glow which does +3 now, another HJK, another is one of the fastest pokes in the game and can baton pass! and it is possible-Moody got banned for similar reasons. yet, only the USER OF THE ABILITY was banned. see my point?

"don't blame the ability: blame the user." that's why everyone is up in arms and making topics and such, because there are similar things as SV and Sc that are more suspect. there are a ton of pokes who can BP DT. anypoke cn hold the hax items(so i kinda see the banning now, to an extent.) but SV and Sc? stuck to the users.

who told you that if these moves were allowed the whole metagame will revolve around them?do you know it from actual testing?'cause i though that we judge things for being overpowered after we test them...what makes you think that these moves would break the metagame?
in fact those moves make you lose most of the times...after one double team the opponent has 75% chance to hit you?does this seems little to you?so that means that after 1 use 3 out of 4 times you will already have been hit.so you will have essentialy have wasted a turn 4 out of 5 times.even after 2 uses the opponent still has 60% chance to hit you.again this means that in most of times he will hit you.now in most of cases you will have been hit twice and much likely you will be dead.
and about these magic guard pokes that you were talking about they will do what?ok so they have sub,recover and double team.and i guess also one attacking move or toxic..right?so what are these pokes going to do to any steel,anyhting faster with a sub,any poison poke and to many many more things?pp stall them rly?ok you can pp stall to your heart's content while i setup all 3 layers of spikes with my spiker,and sr also and then i go to my phazer(even at +6 my whirlwind or roar has 33% of hitting which means that 1 out of 3 turns it would hit)to phaze you out or i go to one of these afromentioned pokes so you can pp stall me(assuming you have more pps than i do).or i just switch all the time between my 2 pokes that have recovery while you do nothing except wasting time and pps.i just heal whenever sr takes it's toll on my pokes.so yes these pokes were going to be huge threats...
anyway there are many factors that must be take into account but the fact is that you can't go talking that doube team would overpower the metagame without any solid proof.
and something else.i have never said that anything is uncompetitive because it cannot be countered by switching...where did you get this from?uncompetitive is something that makes the game more luck based without adding nothing that revolves around skill and doesn't have enough counters.that's what i have said many times as the explanation of uncompetitiveness...
so everything else that you have said from there and on is irrelevant and off topic...

Thank you. That was more of what I was looking for. And, while I do not entirely agree, at least I can see the reasoning.

I think the main issue here that causes the disagreement, however, is nothing to do with the abilities themselves. It is about the concept of luck vs skill. The argument you provided basically says that these abilities are bad because they increase luck, which decreases the importance of skill. This is one sentiment I have been and always will be against. I believe skill to be the ability to understand luck and use it to your advantage, or at the very least work around it.

It is my opinion that a skilled player should take these abilities into account when building teams. There plenty of ways to beat them, and saying that the fact that they can make you miss means skill is less important is not something I would agree with. The truely skilled player will be prepared for any opponent and should be able to beat them.

The only times I believe something should be banned are if it:
1) Severely reduces the variety of viable things in the metagame (over-centralization)
2) Has no viable counters

I do not believe either of these things describe Sand Veil and Snow Cloak, so I believe a ban is completely unnecessary.

so according to everything you said i can assume that you want evasion raising moves in the metagame!'cause sure they bring luck to the metagame but your ability to understand luck and use it to your advatntage would allow you to handle them well!
and also you say that the only times that something should be banned is if it has no viable counters.
so i am asking you what are sand veil's counters?oposing weather?how will ninetales or even politoed switch into any sand veil abuser?garchomp murders them horribly,sandslash murders ninetales,and after a swords dance a jolly sandslash with life orb outspeeds and kills any politoed except the scarf one and cacturne murders politoed and does a number to ninetales with focus punch and sucker punch.so where are the counters of sand veil?no guard?sure there is a whole 1 user!aura shpere?sure there are only 2 ou users of this move!thunder?sure it is only a solution in rain where it doesn't matter anyway because sand veil is not anymore active....
so where are the counters of sand veil???!
and something else!wobbufet has no counters...do you believe him to be broken?

 

[jas61292]

so according to everything you said i can assume that you want evasion raising moves in the metagame! 'cause sure they bring luck to the metagame but your ability to understand luck and use it to your advatntage would allow you to handle them well!
and also you say that the only times that something should be banned is if it has no viable counters.

Not exactly. While I think the ban of Brightpowder and Lax Incense was stupid, I have no problem with the rest of the evasion clause. It's true we have never tested it, but I believe that there is a good chance that it would be over-centralizing. If a test for repealing it was proposed, sure, I would love to see what would happen, but with so much other stuff going on, I don't believe that to be at all a priority, especially since I feel I know what would happen.

so i am asking you what are sand veil's counters? oposing weather? how will ninetales or even politoed switch into any sand veil abuser? garchomp murders them horribly, sandslash murders ninetales, and after a swords dance a jolly sandslash with life orb outspeeds and kills any politoed except the scarf one and cacturne murders politoed and does a number to ninetales with focus punch and sucker punch. so where are the counters of sand veil? no guard? sure there is a whole 1 user! aura shpere? sure there are only 2 ou users of this move! thunder? sure it is only a solution in rain where it doesn't matter anyway because sand veil is not anymore active....so where are the counters of sand veil???!

Well, I have yet to see any Pokemon but Garchomp used with one of those abilities in OU (well a few Gliscor too, but still), so in OU, there is not too much to take down Chomp reliably other than other weather. If you think that makes him broken, fine. Nut then go after Chomp.

In the lower tiers however, there are plenty of counters.

Sandslash? How about a Magical Leaf Roserade. Outspeeds and OHKOs
Cacturne? OHKOd by Staraptor's Aerial Ace
Glaceon? Hariyama gets the KO with Vital Throw.
Frosslas? Weavile overkills with Faint Attack
I could go on.

However, you will now want to respond to this with "But those moves aren't good." Well, if you hate those abilities so much, then yeah, they are good. Don't complain about something when there is a solution, just because you don't like the solution.

(Oh, and does anyone know if Sacred Sword ignores these abilities? I know it ignores regular evasion)

and something else! wobbufet has no counters...do you believe him to be broken?

Wobbuffet is a very special case. While he has no counters in the traditional sense, that does not mean he is unstoppable. It is just different than other Pokemon. I think it is obvious he is not broken in this metagme, because if he really is so good, why is he UU. (maybe he should be BL, but that's another argument)

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I would like to take a few steps back. It has come to me that this entire arguement of something being "uncompetitive," has soley to deal with the 1st generation ban on double team/minimize and 1HKO moves. And today we are continueing that ban to anything that increases evasion and luck (I would not be so quick to put down the kings rock and quick claw arguements here, as they are about as relivant as Canea with sand veil.) It is my personal belief, that this is an uncorrect extension of that rule, that was never designed to stop "uncompetitiveness." Double team and 1HKOs moves, are just flat out annoying, doubt me? Play on PBR and battle tower, where they are allowed, quickly you will find people spamming both. Now, this has little to do with uncompetitiveness, becuase you will find people competitively haxing each other out on nintendo servers, its perfectly fair. But that is not what the first gen rules makers wanted, it lead to the exact definition of an undesirable metagame. Yes that is subjective, I will not lie about that, but they simply did not want to deal with any of that shit. Now, sand veil and snow cloak hax, are not nearly as annoying as either of those moves, so they clearly are not leading to an undesirable metagame.

Sometimes you have got to stop using twisted logic, and say "You know what, people just don't want this, so lets not have it." I mean you can compare this to real life with the rule against people roiting in the streets for days on end, at a certain point the governement can just say "enough is enough", and send them home. One could logically then say the government then has the right to stop you from speaking your mind, which is a totally backwards, but logical, view someone has on a ban. And to be honest, twisted logic doesn't even make that much sense half the time, I has someone tell me today in my political club, that because I was for abortion (just an example I am not attacking pro-lifers), that I might as well be for killing undesirable 5 year old children. Slippery slope arguements like this can be totally dismantled by looking at the in between steps, like the fact that 5 year olds are thinking people, and feutuses are not, and other various diferences between 5 year olds and fuetuses. This subject, may not look like a slippery slope arguement, but it is, we have banned a few luck based moves, and now items, and people,without looking at the various diferences, have subjected all hax to this original ban.

 

[Roosh]

Complex ban on Blaziken please. Speed Boost broke it. Blaze was fine.

 

[TheValkyries]

None of those are unecessary, simply because flinching, paralysis, and confusion (to a lesser extent) has been an integral part of the metagame. Evasion hasn't, so why should we keep some instances of evasion when we have banned all others? It just seems like an inconsistency, which is unnecessary. If I didn't make that point clear, I apologize; I'm not very good at stating my thoughts.

So we ban evasion for no other reason than, you know, we should because that would make things neat? I'm sorry I don't buy that. As a form of luck it is on par with the luck I listed, and there is not a significant enough difference between them to merit discussion of bans.

As per inconsistency I'll get to that later...

This entire argument has been established with the fact that you cannot prepare for Sand Veil or Snow Cloak, since whether you switch different weather or not, the poke has already done it's job.

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow... What I was saying was that there is no logical extension out towards the entirety of SV/SC beyond Garchomp. This is, and has always been about Garchomp, and only Garchomp. Any other Pokemon with these evasion abilities simply aren't creating a problem.

Except I never said that unskilled players should never win against more skilled players. I just said evasion makes it way too uncontrollable.

Straw manning the point, which was that just because you can't control the hax against you doesn't mean it's too uncompetitive compared to the rest of the game.

Plus, stone edge also has a 1 in 5 chance of missing, so forgive me for my laziness to do the math, but doesn't that mean the crit chance is about 10%? Not very game breaking, especially since crits have been in the metagame since forever (and SV and SC is twice that anyway).

You made a point about Inconsistency. It's funny that you mention that Stone Edge's crit chance is 10% and how it's still "not game-breaking," as Brightpowder was banned for exactly the 10% increase of Evasion. In reality, 10% is so insignificant compared to the rest of the meta-game that the ban was an utter joke, and came only from wanting to incorrectly "keep consistent" rather than ban intelligently. 10% is the base-line of all secondary "hax" effects. Yet it was banned because it was "inconsistent", despite the fact that it was in the meta-game since it's existence as well, and only RECENTLY banned (which goes to show that age has no bearing on what should or shouldn't be banned).

That's why these arguments of "integral parts of the meta-game for so long" don't cut it. Brightpowder, Lax Incense, Sand Veil, and Snow Cloak have not even been talked about since the beginning of their existence until recently, and all for one reason: Garchomp. It's gotten to the point where we're grasping at straws to lessen Garchomp so that he's not as powerful, but we have to face the fact that the things he uses aren't the part that's too powerful, it's Garchomp himself.

Now I'm also not going to forget the whole idea of "ban it, because it's inconsistent with a pre-existing ban." Evasion Clause was not about all evasion. It was about the evasion moves. These moves ACTIVELY boosted their evasion in game, to the point where you'd only land a HIT 33% of the time. Now, 1/3 are still semi-decent odds, until you realize that every major powerhouse of the meta-game had these moves. They could use it to set up, and not get touched throughout a sweep. Even worse, would be the defensive juggernauts who would use evasion. Hard enough to kill with 100% moves, add in the fact that they can actively increase their evasion? That's not just a little broken, that's a TON broken. Compared to the less than 1/3 chance to MISS with SV/SC and Brightpowder on the same Poke, the latter sounds downright peachy. The Evasion Clause was instituted to solve a SERIOUS problem, not as an excuse to back alley nerf Garchomp to keep him in OU later on.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Yeah, except that opens a whole new path that we don't want to go down.

Do you know how much controversy doing a complex ban on weather + ability generated? Well, complex ban pokemon + ability and you get a shitload of

The point in banning is creating the simplest (smallest) ban(s) to create the best metagame possible. We're not achieving that by opening a new series of complex bans.

Maybe I like a complex metagame? Whats banning a certain ability on a pokemon going to do to the metagame? And its not like we would ever have a shitload of bans, at worst we would have a few Uber bans, and a handfull of BL bans for abilties. Thats not a lot of pokemon, or even that complex, and you can avoid an absurd slippery slope if you don't tier pokemon based on abilties, but instead just ban them.

I have actually argeued this quite a bit, and the only problem I can't break though, is the eventual point that if you where to ban certain abilites on certain pokemon, theorically it could allow wiggle room to decrease Ubers ability to battle, and make them OU. Now, I want to say that its absurd to compare nerfing Blaziken to nerfing Mewtwo, but the fact is under currect smogon policy, both are Uber, no more and no less, even though its pretty odvious Mewtwo is in an entirely diferent range than of Mewtwo, I can not logically argue that. It is not until, smogon made a definative list of Ubers, that are just OU-banned, as opposed to true direhard Ubers, I can argue that. Until that happens, I have no point, so if anyone does argue against me, please don't go down that path, becuase currently it been gone over well enough, and its a dead end.

Although its interesting becuase no one ever had any problem with banning certain abilties with the BL tier, just not Ubers.

 

[TorchicBlaziken]

The fact that this conversation is getting so ridiculous and not going anywhere important tells me that maybe we should call off the suspect tests for now before something else gets banned for no reason.

 

[Matthew]

I do believe that the suspect test should be placed on hold for a month or two, see how the metagame progresses without us fucking with it, but I'm in the minority on that point. It shouldn't be called off by any means, but put on hold could be good.

 

[changos]

SV and SC aren't broken, since they work a lot like swift swim meaning an instant +2 (more or less) to one stat when the conditions are favorable. but garchomp as a whole IS broken with Sand Veil since you give a really good poke a free boost

 

[Raikaria]

Complex ban on Blaziken please. Speed Boost broke it. Blaze was fine.

Dark Void broke Darkrai.
Air Slash/Seed Flare broke Skymin
Outrage broke Mance in 4th Gen
Swords Dance breaks Garchomp in 4th Gen
Draco Meteor broke Lati@s in 4th Gen
Recover broke Deo-D in Gen 4

See where I'm going?

Drizzle + Swift Swim is banned. Why not?

Because those two have no correlation.

Is Infinite Rain, Boosting Water-type attacks by x1.5, a part of Swift Swim, Kingdra, ect?

No.

Is doubleing the speed of Kingdra, ect, a part of Politoad?

No, it is Swift Swim, which is a part of Kingdra, ect.

See the problem here, the two are broken in tandem, but not as standalone. Rain has not been proven as broken standalone yet, and Swift Swim is certainly not broken under self-supporting conditions [Rain Dance].

---
Meanwhile:
Is Speed Boost a part of Blaziken? Yes
Is HJK a part of Blaziken? Yes
Is Flare Blitz a part of Blaziken? Yes
Is coverage moves to hit all of its counters a part of Blaziken? Yes
Is Swords Dance a part of Blaziken? Yes
Is the ability to be a mixed sweeper part of Blaziken? Yes

See the difference? Blaziken is banned because Blaziken is broken... as Blaziken. Speed Boost is a part of Blaziken, Swift Swim is not a part of Politoad, nor Drizzle a part of Kingdra.

The only way a complex ban would come into force is if Speed Boost was a broken ability in its own right, like Moody was. Ninjask and Yanmega are not going Uber anytime soon.

Banning Speed Boost on Blaziken is like banning Dark Void on Darkrai, or Outrage on Gen 4 Mance, or Air Slash on Skymin.

Drizzle + Swift Swim is combo banned because they are broken in tandem, but not alone. [Well, Drizzle might be, we'll see how Round 4 goes]

Speed Boost was a part of Blaziken. Everything broken about Blaziken came from Blaziken. Therefor, Blaziken was not fine, and there is no grounds fo a combo ban.

 

[SJCrew]

Raikaira, you're not doing anything but proving him right lol.

The only way a complex ban would come into force is if Speed Boost was a broken ability in its own right, like Moody was. Ninjask and Yanmega are not going Uber anytime soon.

Swift Swim wasn't broken in it's own right either. It doubled Speed on terrible Pokemon like Luvdisc and Lumineon, too. In fact, all it does is boost Speed. If we were to ban by logic of what initiates brokenness, Drizzle houses everything wrong with Rain teams and should have been banned right away. The real issue was keeping weather wars in effect so that Sun and Sand would not dominate the ladder without an extra check to keep them in line. But of course, we failed to predict the repercussions of keeping the best permanent weather in OU and ended up banning what looked convenient to us at the time.

Also, your logic can be applied a number of ways:

Everything broken about Blaziken came from Blaziken

This is correct.

Everything broken about Blaziken came from Speed Boost

However, this is also correct. Blaziken would not be broken without Speed Boost. If we nerfed Blaziken by banning him in combination with Speed Boost, he would still be usable in UU.

Everything broken about Swift Swimmers came from Drizzle

This is also correct, but we did not ban Drizzle. We just nerfed the Swift Swimmers to keep Drizzle in OU.

Even if the Swift Swim + Drizzle ban did apply to a number of Pokemon, rather than just one, there is no ruleset or policy preventing us from enacting the ban on a singular Pokemon if there is enough demand for it. The problem is that there just isn't. There will have to be a massive movement for Blaziken to be unbanned sans Speed Boost in order for it to be put on the pools, and even after, it'll have to go through Reach's approval. The truth of a matter was that Blaziken was a broken Pokemon, and regardless of what we could have done to weaken him, he was banned accordingly.

A lot of these political discussions could be avoided if we were to lift the Swift Swim + Drizzle ban and put this complex ban nonsense behind us for good, but this new proposal has already well enough changed our ideas on competitive Pokemon and how far we're willing to go to change anything we don't like.

 

[Thorhammer]

I would like to take a few steps back. It has come to me that this entire arguement of something being "uncompetitive," has soley to deal with the 1st generation ban on double team/minimize and 1HKO moves. And today we are continueing that ban to anything that increases evasion and luck (I would not be so quick to put down the kings rock and quick claw arguements here, as they are about as relivant as Canea with sand veil.) It is my personal belief, that this is an uncorrect extension of that rule, that was never designed to stop "uncompetitiveness." Double team and 1HKOs moves, are just flat out annoying, doubt me? Play on PBR and battle tower, where they are allowed, quickly you will find people spamming both. Now, this has little to do with uncompetitiveness, becuase you will find people competitively haxing each other out on nintendo servers, its perfectly fair. But that is not what the first gen rules makers wanted, it lead to the exact definition of an undesirable metagame. Yes that is subjective, I will not lie about that, but they simply did not want to deal with any of that shit. Now, sand veil and snow cloak hax, are not nearly as annoying as either of those moves, so they clearly are not leading to an undesirable metagame.

Sometimes you have got to stop using twisted logic, and say "You know what, people just don't want this, so lets not have it." I mean you can compare this to real life with the rule against people roiting in the streets for days on end, at a certain point the governement can just say "enough is enough", and send them home. One could logically then say the government then has the right to stop you from speaking your mind, which is a totally backwards, but logical, view someone has on a ban. And to be honest, twisted logic doesn't even make that much sense half the time, I has someone tell me today in my political club, that because I was for abortion (just an example I am not attacking pro-lifers), that I might as well be for killing undesirable 5 year old children. Slippery slope arguements like this can be totally dismantled by looking at the in between steps, like the fact that 5 year olds are thinking people, and feutuses are not, and other various diferences between 5 year olds and fuetuses. This subject, may not look like a slippery slope arguement, but it is, we have banned a few luck based moves, and now items, and people,without looking at the various diferences, have subjected all hax to this original ban.

What you're saying is not "people don't want this, so let's not have it". What you're saying is "I don't want this, so let's not have it".

You've mistaken your viewpoint for that of the whole of Smogon. It has not yet been established whether or not people as a whole actually want this. What we know, however, is that people did want a ban on Brightpowder and Lax Incense, and that's why it happened. Apparently to the people who voted, those items were annoying enough to ban them - and according to your logic, that makes the bans justified. And that means that unless people somehow find Sand Veil + Sand Stream and Snow Cloak + Snow Warning to be less annoying than Brightpowder and Lax Incense, then those two combination bans must happen, as well.

Of course, the only way to do this is to put those combination bans to a vote, and if the vote winds up in favor of banning both of them, then the voters must be considered to have been correct in banning them, and the bans were justified. This is the only logical conclusion to the arguments you have made here. Do you agree with it?

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

If for some reason its voted on that these would be banned, I would just have to accept it. Although it is my fundamental belief that we already extended ourselfs too far by banning hax items, and to the outside person yes, this is the logical continueation. But I believe we should revalutate the hax item ban, becuase your right, those items are signifigantly less annoying then sand veil and snow cloak, that doesn't mean they where right to ban. Its entirely possible the that counsil voted to ban this under the wrong premise. I would again like to bring up king's rock, quick claw, and razor claw, all of such items are in that same definition as uncompetitive and unfair, and hax items and sand veil. So logic would dictate our next step here, is to ban those, which totally ignores the reason why double team and 1HKO items where banned in the first place, which was an undiserable metagame, not uncompetitiveness.

 

[Yoshiken]

None of those are unecessary, simply because flinching, paralysis, and confusion (to a lesser extent) has been an integral part of the metagame. Evasion hasn't, so why should we keep some instances of evasion when we have banned all others? It just seems like an inconsistency, which is unnecessary. If I didn't make that point clear, I apologize; I'm not very good at stating my thoughts.

Evasion has been a part of our metagame, just not on 100% accuracy moves. (Although, IIRC, even those have a 1/250 chance to miss...) Also, if we're taking that approach, shouldn't the Sleep Clause be removed? I mean, Sleep's been an integral part of our metagame...
(No, I don't actually support that. Just pointing out the flaw in the argument.)

However, you will now want to respond to this with "But those moves aren't good." Well, if you hate those abilities so much, then yeah, they are good. Don't complain about something when there is a solution, just because you don't like the solution.

This. This this this SO MANY TIMES. Answers exist - Haxorus has already been pointed out as an answer to the SubSet, at least, and the Choice set can't SD, so is a lot easier to tank.

Wobbuffet is a very special case. While he has no counters in the traditional sense, that does not mean he is unstoppable. It is just different than other Pokemon. I think it is obvious he is not broken in this metagme, because if he really is so good, why is he UU. (maybe he should be BL, but that's another argument)

Well. Except for Taunters. And status abusers. Those tend to a pretty good job against him. >.>

Otherwise, just chiming in my support on suspending testing, since we're not getting anywhere. Let the metagame change, see what counters appear to what's already here, and if Garchomp is still ridiculous, then take a look at what we can do. At least look at the alternatives before pushing for the ban, though.

 

[AGL]

The fact that this conversation is getting so ridiculous and not going anywhere important tells me that maybe we should call off the suspect tests for now before something else gets banned for no reason.

Nothing will get Banned for no Reasons.
Besides it should be nice to hear some of other's tought, that's why it is on hold, isnt it ??

I do believe that the suspect test should be placed on hold for a month or two, see how the metagame progresses without us fucking with it, but I'm in the minority on that point. It shouldn't be called off by any means, but put on hold could be good.

Yep, nothing good will come out if we just rush thing off,

SV and SC aren't broken, since they work a lot like swift swim meaning an instant +2 (more or less) to one stat when the conditions are favorable. but garchomp as a whole IS broken with Sand Veil since you give a really good poke a free boost

I don't think that Garchomp is broken. The only thing that make Garchomp untouchable is Sand Stream.
I Beleive Sand Stream alreade make a lot of trouble already, but i think it is still alright. It's much better Banning the Ability which summons the Weather, not the Pokemon who Abuses it. But till now, i haven't see any reasons why those Weather Summoners and Abusers should be banned.

If for some reason its voted on that these would be banned, I would just have to accept it. Although it is my fundamental belief that we already extended ourselfs too far by banning hax items, and to the outside person yes, this is the logical continueation. But I believe we should revalutate the hax item ban, becuase your right, those items are signifigantly less annoying then sand veil and snow cloak, that doesn't mean they where right to ban.

No, Sand Veil and Snow CLoak only activates in Weather Conditions, which required some "Special Situations", and still could be Countered, while Hax Items activate Randomly. Those Random thing is the answers from why'd those items get Banned.

Its entirely possible the that counsil voted to ban this under the wrong premise. I would again like to bring up king's rock, quick claw, and razor claw, all of such items are in that same definition as uncompetitive and unfair, and hax items and sand veil. So logic would dictate our next step here, is to ban those, which totally ignores the reason why double team and 1HKO items where banned in the first place, which was an undiserable metagame, not uncompetitiveness.

Double Team brokes the game. Even most of my pokemon in my team is Knocked Out when i'm facing Cynthia's Spiritomb after it gets 2(or more) Double Team. I really pisses me off. Look, even NPC's Double Team is that Powerful, can you imagine how will it affect the Metagames ?? Then, OHKO Moves. It is not really a nice move when you are using it in a random Pokemon, but the Luck Required is pissing alot of people, just like as if the Game is designed to test out your luck. It is broken. And i think if OHKO moves is not Banned, Articuno might be banned as well.

Sand Veil shouldn't be Banned. The only Ability which can be Banned is Weather Summoner, not the Weather Abusers's Ability. If you are trying to Ban Garchomp, then Ban Garchomp, not the Ability

CMIIW (correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[alexwolf]

Well, I have yet to see any Pokemon but Garchomp used with one of those abilities in OU (well a few Gliscor too, but still), so in OU, there is not too much to take down Chomp reliably other than other weather. If you think that makes him broken, fine. Nut then go after Chomp.

i have said you this a million times!my concern about sand veil is uncompetitiveness not that it makes garchomp broken!stop telling me about about garchomp's brokeness...

In the lower tiers however, there are plenty of counters.

Sandslash? How about a Magical Leaf Roserade. Outspeeds and OHKOs
Cacturne? OHKOd by Staraptor's Aerial Ace
Glaceon? Hariyama gets the KO with Vital Throw.
Frosslas? Weavile overkills with Faint Attack
I could go on.

However, you will now want to respond to this with "But those moves aren't good." Well, if you hate those abilities so much, then yeah, they are good. Don't complain about something when there is a solution, just because you don't like the solution.

did you forget what i said before?the counters must be viable in their current enviroment?so roserade will use a 60bp move just to kill one poke that isn't even common?hariyama will run the useless vital throw instead of revenge or close combat or even brick break(breaks screens)only to kill one poke that again is very uncommon.as you see i could go on...
sand veil and snow cloak don't have counters becuase always hitting moves suck!badly!that's why we have banned the evasion raising moves...if the always hitting moves didn't suck so bad then why didn't we let double team in our metagame huh?'cause with these moves we could handle double team without any problem.so problem solved see?but unfortunately these moves are not used for a reason...so don't tell me sucky options that noone would ever use for a problem that i present right in your eyes...

Wobbuffet is a very special case. While he has no counters in the traditional sense, that does not mean he is unstoppable. It is just different than other Pokemon. I think it is obvious he is not broken in this metagame, because if he really is so good, why is he UU. (maybe he should be BL, but that's another argument)

and finally i asked you about wobbufet for a reason.to show you that your logic is flawed...wobuffet is just an example.but the point is that lack of counters is not always a reason to ban something.mew for example with the multiple sets that he can run doesn't virtually have any counters...if he nasty plots and you send in something to counter the standart nasty plot he just batton passes and screws you right away.if he sends in a phazer you just got burned 'cause it was the stall breaker version.you decide to send in something faster that can take most of its hits and then it suddenly uses agility and again batton passes to something that can fuck you over...do you see how it doesn't have any counters???is it broken?i don't think so...

Now I'm also not going to forget the whole idea of "ban it, because it's inconsistent with a pre-existing ban." Evasion Clause was not about all evasion. It was about the evasion moves. These moves ACTIVELY boosted their evasion in game, to the point where you'd only land a HIT 33% of the time. Now, 1/3 are still semi-decent odds, until you realize that every major powerhouse of the meta-game had these moves. They could use it to set up, and not get touched throughout a sweep. Even worse, would be the defensive juggernauts who would use evasion. Hard enough to kill with 100% moves, add in the fact that they can actively increase their evasion? That's not just a little broken, that's a TON broken. Compared to the less than 1/3 chance to MISS with SV/SC and Brightpowder on the same Poke, the latter sounds downright peachy. The Evasion Clause was instituted to solve a SERIOUS problem, not as an excuse to back alley nerf Garchomp to keep him in OU later on.

yes you are so right...why i didn't think about it earlier???every major powerhouse usually has 6 free turns to boost it's evasion to the point that it will be hit only once every 3 hits.and because usually most powerhouses are very bulky they can take 2 or 3 hits before they die?right?
are you serious?in which game you will find six free turns?evasion will give them to you?'cause even after 3 uses the opponent has bigger chances of hitting you than it has to miss...so in most of the battles your offensive powerhouse will die in 1 or 2 hits before it even gets to +6.so pls get real!if you are treating things like this then ok...imagine a +6/+6/+6 volcarona?scary right?let's ban it!but wait i forgot...how will volcarona find all these turns?and about the defensive juggernauts that you were talking about...i imagine that you are reffering to pokes which have reliable recovery or else it doesn't matter how defensive they are 'cause when i switch into my counter they will die in 3 hits at most.and as i told you before 3 hits are not difficult to land.so they have double team,healing move,and what?a boosting move to raise their attack or something?fine then they only use 1 attacking move so this means that they are walled by 100 pokes...or do they use an attacking move along with toxic.any steel type with recovery can take them.any poison type with recovery can take them.every gliscor can take them.every poke with recovery and sub can take them.is he running 2 moves so he can have good coverage...fine then he is just walled easily by many things 'cause his attack is unboosted and uninvested(you said defensive juggernauts so i assume that they will be defensively evd)...
so in most of the cases it would be a crap strategy.only few pokes may prove broken due to many factors that i cannot know now 'cause i have done no playtest with these moves.and if double team was banned due to brokeness then this move should break at least the majority of pokes that get it...but we can clearly see that it only may break the minority of pokes that get it.
so why did we ban the move and not the pokes that became broken with it?'cause we banned this move due to uncompetitiveness!
i am tired of hearing people saying 'oh +6 evasion means that i get hit only once every 3 times so it's so fucking broken'.things are not so simple.think before you speak....

I would like to take a few steps back. It has come to me that this entire arguement of something being "uncompetitive," has soley to deal with the 1st generation ban on double team/minimize and 1HKO moves. And today we are continueing that ban to anything that increases evasion and luck (I would not be so quick to put down the kings rock and quick claw arguements here, as they are about as relivant as Canea with sand veil.) It is my personal belief, that this is an uncorrect extension of that rule, that was never designed to stop "uncompetitiveness." Double team and 1HKOs moves, are just flat out annoying, doubt me? Play on PBR and battle tower, where they are allowed, quickly you will find people spamming both. Now, this has little to do with uncompetitiveness, becuase you will find people competitively haxing each other out on nintendo servers, its perfectly fair. But that is not what the first gen rules makers wanted, it lead to the exact definition of an undesirable metagame. Yes that is subjective, I will not lie about that, but they simply did not want to deal with any of that shit. Now, sand veil and snow cloak hax, are not nearly as annoying as either of those moves, so they clearly are not leading to an undesirable metagame.

Sometimes you have got to stop using twisted logic, and say "You know what, people just don't want this, so lets not have it." I mean you can compare this to real life with the rule against people roiting in the streets for days on end, at a certain point the governement can just say "enough is enough", and send them home. One could logically then say the government then has the right to stop you from speaking your mind, which is a totally backwards, but logical, view someone has on a ban. And to be honest, twisted logic doesn't even make that much sense half the time, I has someone tell me today in my political club, that because I was for abortion (just an example I am not attacking pro-lifers), that I might as well be for killing undesirable 5 year old children. Slippery slope arguements like this can be totally dismantled by looking at the in between steps, like the fact that 5 year olds are thinking people, and feutuses are not, and other various diferences between 5 year olds and fuetuses. This subject, may not look like a slippery slope arguement, but it is, we have banned a few luck based moves, and now items, and people,without looking at the various differences, have subjected all hax to this original ban.

you forgot a little detail.in battle tower what mattered was to keep you streak intact which means that with one lose you do everything from the beginning.but you would still win the majority of battles against double team users.since we don't want to achieve any streak in our competitive battles(except maybe in knock out tournaments)your example is completely irrelevant and misleading.what people(people who play to win) want in competitive battles are to win the majority of the battles.every player will lose every so and then but this is not a problem 'cause we don't want to increase any streak.what matters is that when you face a double team user in the majority of the battles you will win.that's what matters!