np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[alphatron]

So ban weather because it's a top tier playstyle and you're sick of fighting against it? Sure, why not.

Banning sand and hail does indeed make the metagame more diverse. I mean...I can get away with using shedinja now!

In all seriousness, the current metagame IS diverse! There are plenty of viable pokemon who can shine and find their spot on any team. Mienshao, Terakion, Scolipede to an extent, the new Storm Drain Gastrodon, etc. They simply aren't used now because they aren't the cream of the crop! It's much easier to win using weather than it is using a no weather team. Sure, a prepared no weather team can easily prepare for weather and handle it, but why go through those hoops when you could just play rain and spam hydro pump and thunder? If you get involved in any competitive metagame, players have always gravitated towards what wins and what wins best. In mtg, all the winning decks had Jace the Mind Sculptor in them. Last year, jigglypuff was winning all the melee tournaments. In brawl, its metaknight. In the pokemon TCG for a while, it was either run Luxray or handicap yourself by not running him.

Banning weather because you're sick of playing against it is even worse than the smashboards arguement to ban metaknight from tournaments. Ban the top tier, simply because it is the top tier? I thought we were only banning broken things?

But what the hell do I know? I'm just a butthurt bawing weather fanboy who can't handle choosing a different playstyle simply because others don't like it. And to be honest, why should I? I see no good reason for doing so.

 

[Yoshiken]

Dude, by that logic, there should be no Ubers, since that is the top tier. The discussion here is about whether or not these things are broken, so we need to discuss why they're broken or not. (Also, wasn't it Fox in SSBM? And Meta-Knight is broken, let's face it.)

But no, I see your point at the same time. Yes, weather is a very strong playstyle and is very easy to pick up and win. No, weather is not unbeatable and, as such, is not broken; sure, it might be harder to win than the average non-weather team, but that doesn't make it "Play weather or lose" - it just means you're giving yourself a challenge by not doing it.

 

[Benlisted]

More problems are fixed banning auto weather and there aren't many(if any at all) problems fixed keeping it that the ban wouldn't fix. We'd have a better metagame with more Pokemon in a faster amount of time and problems actually caused by getting rid of weather abilities are small, only one I can really think of that would be mentioned in a thread like this is "OMG NO TYRANITAR". Sure there might be problems but there is no perfect metagame and we can try fixing the problem from there, it cannot be worse than keeping all this Rain, Sand, and Sun.

Firstly, you don't actually tell us what this plethora of problems to be fixed by banning auto-weather are, as well as completely overlooking the issues of banning huge parts of the current meta and utterly destabilising it. Secondly, better is entirely subjective, and more presumably viable pokemon is a dubious presumption - the huge amount of Rain and Sun abusers who would be mediocre at best out of their weather would become unviable. The main problem with simply banning all auto-weather is that it simply is not broken. I don't think many of us would think that SS is broken currently, Sun was voted OU by a huge majority (Drizzle even by a lesser one) and lol Hail?

Essentially you're advocating the removal of three non-broken aspects of the game (and one perhaps broken one in Drizzle) without any justification other that the metagame would be "better" and have more viable pokemon. To me this sounds like it's merely your POV that weather is bad for the meta, but since you don't even explain why you think this I don't know why I should take your points seriously.

 

[Nanoswine]

This, exactly this.
Of course, the weather fanboys will baww and whine about their precious playstyle being gone before they adapt. Buut yeaaah giving weather the axe will actually lead to a more diverse meta since people won't have to take up a team slot/move slot to counter/induce weather.

Kind of like how other shit started to flourish in Gen four when Salamence went uber. But this isn't gen four, so I'd imagine even more new toys would become available to teams with the weather choke-hold gone. IMO weather is holding back the meta big time, because only so much can work while it's around, AND it's boosting otherwise normal Pokemon to insane levels. It's the obvious elephant in the room that everyone is too scared to get rid of.

It's this sort of anti-weather standpoint that really irritates me. There aren't "weather fanboys" whining about their playstyle being removed, there are all of you anti-weather players sitting on your ass bitching about a problem that doesn't exist.

Weather leads to a more diverse metagame. No matter how you look at it. With weather, we have Sand Offense, Sand Stall, Rain Offense, Rain Stall, Sun Offense, Hail Offense, Hail Stall, Anti-Weather, No Weather Offense, No Weather Stall, not to mention all of the types of balanced teams. All of these playstyles have been used to great success, don't try to say otherwise. So we have at least 10 successful types of team available? Most of which have completely different sets of commonly used Pokemon? Less diverse my ass.

When you ban anything new niches open up. If we were to ban weather, there would be an entire metagame upheaval, and chances are it would be like it was back in Round 1 - broken shit left and right. Bans are made in order to improve the metagame. How is throwing it into chaos again helpful in any way?

Weather makes Pokemon more powerful than they would be without weather, but do you see anyone saying that any of these Pokemon are broken? Aside from those who want to get rid of weather and are scrambling for anything they can cling to, no.

What is obvious to you is an annoying joke to others.

 

[capefeather]

There are a lot of opinions being thrown around for and against banning weather, and a lot of it is legit. However, as someone who tends to be adverse to bans, I think that people have been jumping to a few conclusions here.

The foremost assumption has been that the metagame is centralized around the weather inducers. However, the only fact that has really been given is that keeping one's weather inducer alive is technically important. Sure, the metagame almost definitely revolves around weather control, but the other five Pokémon are far more important than people like to give them credit for. I find that a lot of good rain and sun teams have ways to function reasonably well with their weather temporarily off. This gives them more breathing room so that they don't HAVE to switch in their weather inducer at some given inconvenient time. Not to mention, the most common weather is sand, but with only a few Pokémon to abuse it, it tends to be used more as a weather-stopper than as a fully functioning weather in itself.

The other major claim is that the weather centralization is killing the diversity of the metagame... but we have no usage stats yet. I wouldn't be surprised if the stats turned out to be just as diverse as they were at the end of Gen 4, maybe even more diverse. Loss of diversity is simply unprovable and uncertain at this point. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the bandwagoning toward certain suspects may be killed by the usage stats... (and some perhaps strengthened lol).

An aside:

Also, wasn't it Fox in SSBM?

Fox and Falco are considered the two best characters in SSBM, but the only major tournament that either has won in recent memory is Revival of Melee 3. Maybe that means they're not the best characters, or maybe it's a testament to Melee's relative balance. One can interpret this however one wants.

 

[SupremeDirt]

Fox and Falco are actually completely balanced because there is a very high tech-skill barrier to their full potential.

Also, seriously? On Smashboards I had to mention that Smash and Pokémon are not able to be compared due to being VASTLY different games.

 

[Darusare]

I find weather to be a nice check to all the steels
fire water and earthquake (common stab moves of pokemon using their respective weathers) all hit steel neutrally at least,
while dragons resist or can be immune to these
water hits them neutrally
(why drizzle is so good)
sandstorm teams dont get boosted attacks anyway so they pack other things
both droughts common attacks fire and grass fall flat against dragons
do they have to rely on other things
thats the heirarchy of weathers
(what hits dragons)

 

[Mishra]

Weather leads to a more diverse metagame. No matter how you look at it. With weather, we have Sand Offense, Sand Stall, Rain Offense, Rain Stall, Sun Offense, Hail Offense, Hail Stall, Anti-Weather, No Weather Offense, No Weather Stall,

As someone who is playing close to the top of the tier on PO, Sand stall, rain stall, hail offense, hail stall, and no weather stall are pretty much nonexistent or rogue (I would consider my team Anti-Weather). And out of the five remaining, sand offensive and rain offensive are by far, the most common with the exact same cores (with a diffrence of 2-3 pokemon between teams), followed by the rare other 3 (and I don't think I have yet fought another antiweather team, and only a handful on nonweather offensive).

This is not to say that weather should get the axe all at once (or even at all), but please don't give people the illusion that this is anything, but a very centralized metagame around really 1-3 tier 1 strategies, followed by a crap ton of tier 2 or lower ones ( I would consider my team a tier 2 strategy).

 

[alphatron]

Also, seriously? On Smashboards I had to mention that Smash and Pokémon are not able to be compared due to being VASTLY different games.

I wasn't comparing them. I simply mentioned smash as one of the games that has a clear top tier, but nobody wants to get rid of it. Fox and Falco are indeed at the top, but as a joke it was debated that Jigglypuff was the new top tier due to one of the pros (forgot his name) winning every single tourney that year with her. Pound 4 finals were also Jigglypuff dittos, with Jigglypuff winning the whole thing obviously.

Being a jiggs main in melee, I don't know about any high skill tech barrier for her as I just spam bair and combo into rest. But this is the wrong forum to talk about this entirely.

As far as weather goes, it seems like people are just annoyed at seeing the same thing repeatedly. I can understand that. During round 2, I once saw Shrang's team with toxicroak and virizion being used by FIVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE in the same day. And I see specially defensive mixed tyranitar in just about every match. All Gliscor run the exact same set with the exact same EVs. It gets old really fast.

But I eventually get over it and keep on playing, realizing that these sets and playstyles are all very good and have a good chance at leading the player to victory. I don't come back here asking for bans. I even got over Deo-S. >_>

 

[Ulevo]

What bothers me about the circumstances that we find ourselves in now is that there really isn't anything stopping users from consistently complaining until they get what they want. For every intelligent, insightful and informed discussion that might go on in a suspect thread, you have five other people just bitch and complain they want something banned because they know they can.

Where do you draw the line exactly? Where does it stop? "When we have a balanced metagame?" Don't fool yourself. The metagame won't ever be balanced. I'd think the standard tier being called Over Used would be an indication of that. People will point to Gen IV and its "balance" at the end of its time, but the fact is that it died before we really got to see where that was even going.

We have people still nominating Excadrill even though he's been voted OU three times in a row. Reuniclus is in a similar circumstance, and now we have people entertaining the suggestion that Tyranitar should be tested. Yes, that isn't exactly a supported idea, but the mere thought of it is concerning. Again, where do you draw the line.

 

[Nanoswine]

As someone who is playing close to the top of the tier on PO, Sand stall, rain stall, hail offense, hail stall, and no weather stall are pretty much nonexistent or rogue (I would consider my team Anti-Weather). And out of the five remaining, sand offensive and rain offensive are by far, the most common with the exact same cores (with a diffrence of 2-3 pokemon between teams), followed by the rare other 3 (and I don't think I have yet fought another antiweather team, and only a handful on nonweather offensive).

This is not to say that weather should get the axe all at once (or even at all), but please don't give people the illusion that this is anything, but a very centralized metagame around really 1-3 tier 1 strategies, followed by a crap ton of tier 2 or lower ones ( I would consider my team a tier 2 strategy).

The PO metagame is completely different and separate from ours (and arguably a lot less balanced). I have seen all the playstyles I mentioned used successfully. Just because it is easier to use Sand doesn't make it a "tier 1" strategy, because there are many Hail teams out there that consistently beat Sand and Rain teams. What you call "tier 1" strategies are just the ones that require less teambuilding skills and knowledge of the metagame to use successfully. What you call "tier 2" strategies are those that you can't just pick up and use decently. You have to have an actual understanding of the metagame and personal experience to make a successful Hail or No-Weather team. So of course you are going to see more "tier 1" teams out there - they are easier to pick up and start using.

Don't you try to give the illusion that our metagame is overcentralized.

What bothers me about the circumstances that we find ourselves in now is that there really isn't anything stopping users from consistently complaining until they get what they want. For every intelligent, insightful and informed discussion that might go on in a suspect thread, you have five other people just bitch and complain they want something banned because they know they can.

Where do you draw the line exactly? Where does it stop? "When we have a balanced metagame?" Don't fool yourself. The metagame won't ever be balanced. I'd think the standard tier being called Over Used would be an indication of that. People will point to Gen IV and its "balance" at the end of its time, but the fact is that it died before we really got to see where that was even going.

We have people still nominating Excadrill even though he's been voted OU three times in a row. Reuniclus is in a similar circumstance, and now we have people entertaining the suggestion that Tyranitar should be tested. Yes, that isn't exactly a supported idea, but the mere thought of it is concerning. Again, where do you draw the line.

Would you prefer I said "We finally have a metagame that isn't shitty?" This is the most balanced metagame we have yet (though by definition, it should be), and nothing really stands out as broken. If there is something we can do to improve the metagame, by all means, let's do it. But at this point, all I am seeing is general misunderstanding leading to some major misconceptions. "Let's ban Ttar" anyone?

As for the repeated noms bit, that is an inherent problem with our banning process. Each time we vote something Uber or bring something down to OU, the metagame shifts. Repeated nominations have to be necessary in order to reevaluate the metagame. However, the system already has a solution to that problem. Even if we end up with "the right voter pool" to put Reuniclus away, if popular opinion is that it should stay OU, then there's nothing preventing it from being voted back down.

 

[10fore]

Fox and Falco are actually completely balanced because there is a very high tech-skill barrier to their full potential.

A quick aside, fox and falco aren't balanced at all. Fox, Falco, Marth, Jiggz, and Shiek are all unbalanced, which is why they're by far the winningest characters in melee. Just because you have to be good with fox to win doesn't balance him. It's like Gundam Wing, just because Tallgeese was only pilotable by Zechs doesn't make the suit comprable to an Aries. It's WAY better.

Likewise, in pokemon, certain threats have always been top tier. The difference between gen5 and gen4 pokemon is that weather teams can have much more synergy while being fairly diverse, unlike in gen4, where weather teams were fairly predictable. (Sandstorm, while being a common battle condition, was rarely a "theme" like it is now, but a consequence of using the excellent Ttar and Hippo.)

Essentially, the threat becomes the team, and not just "those pokemon."
This makes it harder to compete with the GenIV mindset, because you NEED team synergy to win against weather teams, whether or not you are using one yourself.

It's just much harder to create a non weather team with the same synergy as a weather team.

 

[Mishra]

PO meant pokemon online, but I am play on the smogon server with smogon's rules.

Just because it is easier to use Sand doesn't make it a "tier 1" strategy,

When did I ever imply it was easier to use? Go play on the smogon server and tell me how often you see it? Heck, the 2nd gimmick I am running is demolishing with a sand team, very similar to KG's. It is a tier 1 strategy because it is good and it works.

because there are many Hail teams out there that consistently beat Sand and Rain teams. What you call "tier 1" strategies are just the ones that require less teambuilding skills and knowledge of the metagame to use successfully.

Rogue teams can beat occasional teams. I would LOVE to see hail with my sand team, and I played hail when I was in the 1200s to lower 1300s, and I have always been losing more than the possibility to gain more.

What you call "tier 2" strategies are those that you can't just pick up and use decently. You have to have an actual understanding of the metagame and personal experience to make a successful Hail or No-Weather team. So of course you are going to see more "tier 1" teams out there - they are easier to pick up and start using.

Tier 2 implies that the power level of those teams is lower than tier 1, and by default less common. Of course, a good player can beat a tier 1 deck with a tier 2 deck.

Don't you try to give the illusion that our metagame is overcentralized.

Lol, sure. You could name 10 more teams if you really wanted to, but honestly, there are only about three viable well proven teams that do well, with the same cores. For sand, it is ttar, garchomp, gliscor, gachomp, water type (usually jellicant, starmie or rotom(w)), + free spot. Rain is a little trickier, but Politoed, either one or both genies, ferrathorn, + 2-3 spots. So rain is actually a lot more diverse.

And I didn't say overcentralized. I said centralized. It is NOT diverse, but focused on only a couple of strategies.

 

[jas61292]

What bothers me about the circumstances that we find ourselves in now is that there really isn't anything stopping users from consistently complaining until they get what they want. For every intelligent, insightful and informed discussion that might go on in a suspect thread, you have five other people just bitch and complain they want something banned because they know they can.

Where do you draw the line exactly? Where does it stop? "When we have a balanced metagame?" Don't fool yourself. The metagame won't ever be balanced. I'd think the standard tier being called Over Used would be an indication of that. People will point to Gen IV and its "balance" at the end of its time, but the fact is that it died before we really got to see where that was even going.

We have people still nominating Excadrill even though he's been voted OU three times in a row. Reuniclus is in a similar circumstance, and now we have people entertaining the suggestion that Tyranitar should be tested. Yes, that isn't exactly a supported idea, but the mere thought of it is concerning. Again, where do you draw the line.

You don't. You shouldn't. And you can't. By drawing a line you say to people, "this is what the 'good battlers' think, and your opinion doesn't matter." If we ever drew a line it would both prevent the metagame from adapting as well as it should, and turn the tiering process away from the democratic process that makes it what people want. Just because someone has an opinion you and most other people disagree with doesn't mean you should just prevent them from voicing it. Change can only happen in a place where people are free to make suggestions and have conversations about these things, regardless of weather or not it will actually convince anyone.

Don't you try to give the illusion that our metagame is overcentralized.

And I didn't say overcentralized. I said centralized. It is NOT diverse, but focused on only a couple of strategies.

The Metagame is centralized. That is a fact. But is it overcentralized? That is purely opinion. Overcentralization has no definition. Hell, it's not technically even a word. And yet we throw it around like it has a specific usage percentage attached to it. We don't even know how much anyone is being used yet.

So yes, the metagame is centralized, but that is a good thing. If it wasn't there would be no advantage to careful team building, because you wouldn't know what to expect. Really, for the most part, there is no way to prove overcentralization exists in OU, so please people, at least wait until official usage statistics are out. And even then, if that is your only argument for anything, try and find a better one.

 

[Mishra]

The Metagame is centralized. That is a fact. But is it overcentralized? That is purely opinion. Overcentralization has no definition. Hell, it's not technically even a word. And yet we throw it around like it has a specific usage percentage attached to it. We don't even know how much anyone is being used yet.

It does, you just have to break it up:

Over means: so as to exceed or surpass

Centralize means: Bring (activities) together in one place.

So, to call something overcentralizing is to say it is excessively used in the meta. The argument, I suppose is that the pro weather will try to separate the weathers to make it seem diverse, while pro- ban weather will group them together to make it seem incredibly singular.



So yes, the metagame is centralized, but that is a good thing. If it wasn't there would be no advantage to careful team building, because you wouldn't know what to expect. Really, for the most part, there is no way to prove overcentralization exists in OU, so please people, at least wait until official usage statistics are out. And even then, if that is your only argument for anything, try and find a better one.

 

[Ulevo]

You don't. You shouldn't. And you can't. By drawing a line you say to people, "this is what the 'good battlers' think, and your opinion doesn't matter." If we ever drew a line it would both prevent the metagame from adapting as well as it should, and turn the tiering process away from the democratic process that makes it what people want. Just because someone has an opinion you and most other people disagree with doesn't mean you should just prevent them from voicing it. Change can only happen in a place where people are free to make suggestions and have conversations about these things, regardless of weather or not it will actually convince anyone.

We shouldn't have a democratic process that bases tiering based on "what people want". We should have a tiering processes that bases tiering based on what is and isn't competitively acceptable.

 

[jas61292]

We shouldn't have a democratic process that bases tiering based on "what people want". We should have a tiering processes that bases tiering based on what is and isn't competitively acceptable.

I understand what you are saying but I must disagree. If what people want is not the most important thing, then you end up with a metagame people don't want to play. For the most part, what people want is what is competitively acceptable, but if the majority of people want something else, then that is what should be done. However the cases of that happening are few and far between. I'm not saying we should just ignore competitiveness in decision making. I'm just saying that by drawing a line, we compromise the integrity of the suspect testing process as a whole

So yes, the metagame is centralized, but that is a good thing. If it wasn't there would be no advantage to careful team building, because you wouldn't know what to expect. Really, for the most part, there is no way to prove overcentralization exists in OU, so please people, at least wait until official usage statistics are out. And even then, if that is your only argument for anything, try and find a better one.

So yes, the metagame is centralized, but that is a good thing. If it wasn't there would be no advantage to careful team building, because you wouldn't know what to expect. Really, for the most part, there is no way to prove overcentralization exists in OU, so please people, at least wait until official usage statistics are out. And even then, if that is your only argument for anything, try and find a better one.

And did you just copy word for word what I said, or did something get cut off there?

 

[Crim09]

We shouldn't have a democratic process that bases tiering based on "what people want". We should have a tiering processes that bases tiering based on what is and isn't competitively acceptable.

I am going to +1 this statement. At it's core that is what suspect testing is all about.

 

[jas61292]

I am going to +1 this statement. At it's core that is what suspect testing is all about.

I just want to clarify my statements. I agree, that is what suspect testing is about. However, what was being suggested was pretty much to ignore people who's views on competitiveness you disagree with.

Even if their opinions are wrong (which an opinion really can't be), preventing them from having a say makes the suspect testing process more.... well suspect.

 

[Fawfulmk-II]

yeah...the drizz+Swift swim ban ain't gonna cut it,really, because it aactually can handicap a drizzle user- because if you have a Politoed out, and then your opponent switches into Kingdra or Ludicolo, the congrats, because now you gave your opponent the advantge, AND it's legal since, you were the one who set up the drizzle, not them.

also, the champs of rain are bloody crazy especially compared to drought champs (the other new weather this gen, obviously). I mean with the best clorophyll guys, evey user of the tech is grass, meaning they have to be afraid of threats like TR Chandelure or Volcarona or whatever. Swift Swim on the other hand, has to worry about Thunder, but what's that going todo to a bulky Ludicolo or kingdra? wanna run TR Reuniclus with Thunder? that's cool, though Beartic gets swsw to,and he can learn Shadow Claw, Night slash, and assurance, and also Armaldo can Kill the thing with sex-sissor before it gets the TR out.

another thing drizzle brings that drought didn't were regenerators, and because of that people can use toxicroak to pull off Stallrein level classes of bullshit, with Dry skin, Black Sludge, Substitute ond Accupressure. there was an online 3 team single fight that went on for 103 turns because of that thing! I though it was OK at first since we had 2 weathers based on offense and 2 on defense, but Drzzile got a bit too much of eveything in it's favor, whichis why I'm against it.

Drought is OK with me, tho.

 

[Crim09]

Even if their opinions are wrong (which an opinion really can't be), preventing them from having a say makes the suspect testing process more.... well suspect.

I can also agree with that. The system though is not perfect nor do I think it can be. The objective is to have a semi-balanced and competitive metagame that has a variety of viable possibilities. People's opinions on the metagame though, are what form the metagame. The voting process is the embodiment of this fact an will always have some bias( and hopefully the bias does not hinder the development of the meta to much). There should be a variety of viewpoints that vote, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they should not get a right to vote if they earned it. Is that basically what the two of you are saying?

 

[jas61292]

yeah...the drizz+Swift swim ban ain't gonna cut it,really, because it aactually can handicap a drizzle user- because if you have a Politoed out, and then your opponent switches into Kingdra or Ludicolo, the congrats, because now you gave your opponent the advantge, AND it's legal since, you were the one who set up the drizzle, not them.

also, the champs of rain are bloody crazy especially compared to drought champs (the other new weather this gen, obviously). I mean with the best clorophyll guys, evey user of the tech is grass, meaning they have to be afraid of threats like TR Chandelure or Volcarona or whatever. Swift Swim on the other hand, has to worry about Thunder, but what's that going todo to a bulky Ludicolo or kingdra? wanna run TR Reuniclus with Thunder? that's cool, though Beartic gets swsw to,and he can learn Shadow Claw, Night slash, and assurance, and also Armaldo can Kill the thing with sex-sissor before it gets the TR out.

another thing drizzle brings that drought didn't were regenerators, and because of that people can use toxicroak to pull off Stallrein level classes of bullshit, with Dry skin, Black Sludge, Substitute ond Accupressure. there was an online 3 team single fight that went on for 103 turns because of that thing! I though it was OK at first since we had 2 weathers based on offense and 2 on defense, but Drzzile got a bit too much of eveything in it's favor, whichis why I'm against it.

Drought is OK with me, tho.

OK, good, back to actual discussion of the metagame.

Yeah, rain has a lot going for it. And yeah, the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban is not going to cut it. However, I think the solution is to just remove the ban and let the metagame develop. At that point, if Pokemon such as Kingdra, Ludicolo, Kabutops or others are deemed broken, ban the individuals. Perma rain as a whole isn't a bad thing, even with SSers. Its individual Pokemon. Once we accept that this gen may very well develop under the premise of Perma Rain being the norm, then teams can adapt around it. Right now all we are doing with the current ban is stopping the natural evolution of the metagame.

I can also agree with that. The system though is not perfect nor do I think it can be. The objective is to have a semi-balanced and competitive metagame that has a variety of viable possibilities. People's opinions on the metagame though, are what form the metagame. The voting process is the embodiment of this fact an will always have some bias( and hopefully the bias does not hinder the development of the meta to much). There should be a variety of viewpoints that vote, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they should not get a right to vote if they earned it. Is that basically what the two of you are saying?

Yeah, pretty much. It was in response to this:

We have people still nominating Excadrill even though he's been voted OU three times in a row. Reuniclus is in a similar circumstance, and now we have people entertaining the suggestion that Tyranitar should be tested. Yes, that isn't exactly a supported idea, but the mere thought of it is concerning. Again, where do you draw the line.

Basically what I am saying is that the voting process is what should decide things, and we shouldn't prevent these nominations just because we disagree with the nominators. If you don't agree, vote it down, but by preventing them from doing so we are just saying their opinions are not as valid.

 

[Ulevo]

I just want to clarify my statements. I agree, that is what suspect testing is about. However, what was being suggested was pretty much to ignore people who's views on competitiveness you disagree with.

Even if their opinions are wrong (which an opinion really can't be), preventing them from having a say makes the suspect testing process more.... well suspect.

Your opinion is yours to have; that doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean that opinions are exempt from being wrong. They're not, I'm sorry.

As for your commentary on ignoring peoples views, that is a necessity. Not everyone is right. And in some cases, invalidating opinion all together is the basis for finding a solution to a problem.

If you want my honest opinion, the process we had from Gen I to Gen III of "grandfathering" worked perfectly fine for the most part. It wasn't flawless (exceptions such as Wobbuffet needed to be banned in Gen III are an example of this). But it left much less room for interpretation of biased opinions, and people simply played the metagame. If a threat rose to the top, people adapted, and if they didn't, they lost. Just like in anything else. Yes, people complained, but that happens in every community.

Now, when something becomes good, we simply ban it. Then when the next Pokemon comes along and takes its place, we ban that also. Hence my question, where do you draw the line.

I'm not saying that ignoring peoples opinions is entirely a good thing, I just don't believe peoples opinions on the matter should be considered unless there is a really big problem. Wobb vs Wobb in Gen III is a prime example. Moody in Gen V is a prime example. And even in such cases, only experienced players should have a say. If people want to take that personally, go right ahead. It doesn't make you any more deserving of making the appropriate call.

 

[jas61292]

If you want my honest opinion, the process we had from Gen I to Gen III of "grandfathering" worked perfectly fine for the most part. It wasn't flawless (exceptions such as Wobbuffet needed to be banned in Gen III are an example of this). But it left much less room for interpretation of biased opinions, and people simply played the metagame. If a threat rose to the top, people adapted, and if they didn't, they lost. Just like in anything else. Yes, people complained, but that happens in every community.

Now, when something becomes good, we simply ban it. Then when the next Pokemon comes along and takes its place, we ban that also. Hence my question, where do you draw the line.

I'm not saying that ignoring peoples opinions is entirely a good thing, I just don't believe peoples opinions on the matter should be considered unless there is a really big problem. Wobb vs Wobb in Gen III is a prime example. Moody in Gen V is a prime example. And even in such cases, only experienced players should have a say. If people want to take that personally, go right ahead. It doesn't make you any more deserving of making the appropriate call.

I wasn't really part of the competitive community back in 3rd gen, so I can't really understand the reference. However, I do agree banning is not a good replacement for adapting. If you have ever read any of my posts on Drizzle + SS you would know I am against it because I think people are just using it as an excuse not to adapt to a rain based metagame. Banning things is not a solution to every problem you have.

For the most part in fact when we were discussing the actual metagame, I think we agreed on most issues, and are big disagreements were on the policy of the policy.

And also, I agree that only experienced players should have a say. However I believe that is what the current system already does. While less experienced people can nominate things, if you are not good enough to get a vote, then you have no way of getting that nomination banned. I don't think it would be worth compromising this system just to save those skilled players 2 seconds on the voting.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

Now, when something becomes good, we simply ban it. Then when the next Pokemon comes along and takes its place, we ban that also. Hence my question, where do you draw the line.

Talk about an oversimplification of the process. There's a difference between dominating the game in the way that former suspects have and being good. I'm pretty sure the people that consistently qualify to vote are quite able to draw that line. Or at least a majority opinion is formed on a suitable line especially considering the voting pool has definitely fell on the side of cautious banning so far.

Also to jrrrr (this is from several pages ago, but it's in Haunter's sig for some reason and it's been bothering me). Overcentralization IS a word. It's technically supposed to have a hyphen after over, but who cares (unless you're insanely pedantic, but this is directed at jrrrr so who am i kidding). And it doesn't refer to a Pokemon being used a lot. It refers to how the metagame reacts to it. Heatran was used a ton but the game didn't become overcentralized because you could handle heatran the same way you handled other fire types. It was just the best fire type. Overcentralization speaks to how you handle the threat, not the rate at which it's used. It's a very legitimate reason to ban a Pokemon. Garchomp in Gen IV created overcentralization because it had a very limited set of checks and counters and to deal with it you had to have at least 2/3 of those Pokemon on your team (with garchomp/ttar on top for even more centralization in the way that you're looking at it).