np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[IcyMan28]

Excadrill is far from broken given the checks present to it (and the checks aren't even super specialized, they are useful in their own right). Weaknesses to common attacking types means it has some difficulty setting up, and at +2 it still has its checks.

But that's not the case so, he's always going to be in question both ways regardless of if he's banned or not, much like Latias was in early Plat.

Actually, it's this type of attitude that will keep Excadrill "in question," much like what is happening with Latios currently. Several rounds have passed, and ways around Excadrill have been discovered despite the initial hype. Some haven't moved past it and will continue to cry for its banning.

 

[Pocket]

for shame...

I welcome the introduction of suspect testing to systematically address problems, but I also do agree with MoP's sentiment: people just gotta learn how to deal with certain threats.

That is not to say I am unhappy with the results thus far. For the most part I am actually quite pleased with the minimal ban approach that we've been taking, and I agree with most of the bans (dunno about Speed Boost Blaziken).

 

[capefeather]

Do I have to bring this up again? There are so many ways to nerf a given Pokémon. To nerf Blaziken, we could lower its level, or ban it in concert with Ninetales, or ban Speed Boost on it, or ban High Jump Kick on it, or ban Flare Blitz on it. The only reason you'd be going after Speed Boost is that Blaziken didn't have it "before". Balancing one metagame based on another, unrelated one is never a good idea. Pokémon species can at least be checked right before a non-ladder battle begins.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

To be honest I find the whole "slippery slope" argument against banning specific abilities silly. First off, you would only be banning certain pokemon, not tiering them, any more "Magnezone would be UU without magnet pull" is nonsense.

Aside from that, I have seen various examples of pokemon that could be OU without certain things, that aren't abilities. These range from items to specific ev sets. The fact is if you insist that if you banned certain abilities, then you could also ban those, then you would also have to agree to ban all of those. Lets take for example possible Blaziken banlist:

Blaziken @ Life Orb
Speed Boost
-swords dance
-Hi jump kick
-flare blitz
-stone edge

This might look like a standard Blaziken set, but infact its a ban list. No one can use all those together, take one out, and perhaps its not as broken. So you might be able to run a flareblitzless set, or a life orbless set, ect. And I did not even get that into it, there is all sorts of crazy things I can do here, I can allow level 90 and below Blazikens to run this, I can do this with a neutral nature, or maybe even a hindering one. I can do both of the above maybe at level 95! Maybe force it to hold a lagging tail, or have all 0 ivs. One could go on, and on, and on. But guess what!? You can't do that with just an ability, one is fine, and one isn't, there isn't some sort of crazy lea way in between with abilities, it distinctively separates a pokemon, in no way an item, move, or anything else can.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Then, shouldn't we have banned Kingdra or Politoed, instead of their abilities?

It's going to be temporary.

 

[Nkululeko]

To be honest I find the whole "slippery slope" argument against banning specific abilities silly.

De ja vu, people were saying that before the Aldaron Proposal and look where we are now...

First off, you would only be banning certain pokemon, not tiering them, any more "Magnezone would be UU without magnet pull" is nonsense.

By banning a pokemon you are forcing it into a higher tier upon deciding that it is too powerful in the one it was in at the time said pokemon was found to be broken. By nature, banning a pokemon is putting it into a higher tier and all tiers serve as banlists for the tier below them, like how BL/Ubers serve as a UU/OU banlist respectively.

Aside from that, I have seen various examples of pokemon that could be OU without certain things, that aren't abilities. These range from items to specific ev sets. The fact is if you insist that if you banned certain abilities, then you could also ban those, then you would also have to agree to ban all of those.

The bolded part simply isn't true for any banned pokemon. The fact is that people are asking for one pokemon to be let into OU and probably UU. I take it you didn't read my "power level" theory. By banning only abilities, thereby nerfing the pokemon(like using Blaziken with Blaze while knowing that Speed Boost is better) you are attempting to justify weakening the pokemon until it is no longer broken.

Lets take for example possible Blaziken banlist:

Blaziken @ Life Orb
Speed Boost
-swords dance
-Hi jump kick
-flare blitz
-stone edge

This might look like a standard Blaziken set, but infact its a ban list. No one can use all those together, take one out, and perhaps its not as broken. So you might be able to run a flareblitzless set, or a life orbless set, ect. And I did not even get that into it, there is all sorts of crazy things I can do here, I can allow level 90 and below Blazikens to run this, I can do this with a neutral nature, or maybe even a hindering one. I can do both of the above maybe at level 95! Maybe force it to hold a lagging tail, or have all 0 ivs. One could go on, and on, and on.

This is what confuses me. That is a set not a banlist, might need a protect slashed in but who cares blaziken is uber. Take one out and blaziken is still blaziken and blaziken is uber. The "all sorts of crazy stuff" doesn't apply because the pokemon was banned b/c it was too powerful and just because you can make it suck by using a worse ability, lowering levels or IVs doesn't make Blaziken's potential overall any different, that's why I'm against it.

But guess what!? You can't do that with just an ability, one is fine, and one isn't,

Neither is fine because the pokemon Blaziken is banned. If you can't do that with an ability, how did Blaziken do it with Speed Boost. The one is fine argument therefore doesn't apply because DW abilities aren't tiered differently and Blaziken was banned because of how well it abused an ability. And I know people argue that it's not all about Blaziken but this is getting ridiculous. Nobody's compaigning for Damp Politoed in UU now are they?

there isn't some sort of crazy lea way in between with abilities, it distinctively separates a pokemon, in no way an item, move, or anything else can.

How about level? Level 50 Speed Boost Blaziken<level 100 BlazeBlaziken

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

A complete dictatorship around here would be nice. It'd disregard every single 'ambitious' post around here.

Just because there's a "proposal" that stems under "complex" doesn't mean it'll be done to everything else. It's a case by case thing so stop irrelevantly attempting to suggest it.

Seriously I might as well go sync my iTunes to Harold Camping. Not sure who's more retarded..

 

[jormungand201]

Some users seem to tirelessly ejaculate the same "Slippery Slope" mentality despite the many examples and explanations provided. Most uber comparisons aren't valid because unlike Blaziken, the Uber was always really powerful. Blaziken got an optional new ability that made it uber. Nit picking and focusing on twisting the examples into fitting the slippery slope idea is not progressive.

Why not just have a vote on where to draw the line?

 

[capefeather]

mewtwo comparison isn't valid because unlike Blaziken, it was always really powerful.

seriously man?

I already said:

Balancing one metagame based on another, unrelated one is never a good idea.

Gen 4 is a DIFFERENT GAME from Gen 5. In Gen 4, Mew, Deoxys-D, Garchomp, and Salamence are Uber. Hell, Blaziken was OU in Gen 3... You might as well claim that Pikachu is Uber because it's the best character in Super Smash Bros...

 

[jormungand201]

seriously man?

I already said:



Gen 4 is a DIFFERENT GAME from Gen 5. In Gen 4, Mew, Deoxys-D, Garchomp, and Salamence are Uber. Hell, Blaziken was OU in Gen 3... You might as well claim that Pikachu is Uber because it's the best character in Super Smash Bros...

lol, if only zelda were a pokemon..

k, i guess i understand that, but you can also recognize that we are using the same thought process as the previous gen, when the system should evolve to meet the new gen. People are afraid/too lazy for change, i understand that. People are busy too.

So why not just vote on where to draw the line?

 

[Mario With Lasers]

lol, if only zelda were a pokemon..

k, i guess i understand that, but you can also recognize that we are using the same thought process as the previous gen, when the system should evolve to meet the new gen. People are afraid/too lazy for change, i understand that. People are busy too.

Why should it evolve? There's no problem with the system; you have a pokémon which is broken with its best set, you ban it. End of.

So why not just vote on where to draw the line?

Hey guys I think we should be allowed to marry humans and our pets but not goats, why don't we just vote on where to draw the line?

 

[KurashiDragon]

Hey guys I think we should be allowed to marry humans and our pets but not goats, why don't we just vote on where to draw the line?

Actually, I'll agree with jormungand201 on this one. The fact is that this isn't one of those unsaid absolute rules like interspecies relationships.. The circumstances are different. On such an issue as that the 90 - 99% of all people would agree that Interspecies relations is taboo. However, the line isn't as clear in an issue as banning certain things in a game. I think it would be in the best interest of the community as a whole if we all knew where to draw the line. At least that way we wouldn't have so many posts about "ability/move/level" combination bans.

 

[TheValkyries]

Actually, I'll agree with jormungand201 on this one. The fact is that this isn't one of those unsaid absolute rules like interspecies relationships.. The circumstances are different. On such an issue as that the 90 - 99% of all people would agree that Interspecies relations is taboo. However, the line isn't as clear in an issue as banning certain things in a game. I think it would be in the best interest of the community as a whole if we all knew where to draw the line. At least that way we wouldn't have so many posts about "ability/move/level" combination bans.

We draw the line at the fact that we physically cannot take away things from a Pokemon. We are simulating the game here, and we cannot decide that Blaziken can never have Speed Boost, because we aren't the people who make the game, we are just those who play it. We didn't design the Pokemon, we didn't assign his stats, we didn't create his movepool, we certainly aren't the ones who decide what abilities he is going to have. That's why we don't ban with "Pokemon and Ability" combos. That's not within our power to make that decision. We can only decide whether some of the Pokemon, as given to us by GameFreak, imbalance the game or not, and decide to play without that Pokemon if it does. It's not our place to create our own bastardized, nerfed versions of Pokemon simply so that we can continue playing with them.

 

[Ninja_13]

We draw the line at the fact that we physically cannot take away things from a Pokemon. We are simulating the game here, and we cannot decide that Blaziken can never have Speed Boost, because we aren't the people who make the game, we are just those who play it. We didn't design the Pokemon, we didn't assign his stats, we didn't create his movepool, we certainly aren't the ones who decide what abilities he is going to have. That's why we don't ban with "Pokemon and Ability" combos. That's not within our power to make that decision. We can only decide whether some of the Pokemon, as given to us by GameFreak, imbalance the game or not, and decide to play without that Pokemon if it does. It's not our place to create our own bastardized, nerfed versions of Pokemon simply so that we can continue playing with them.

I call bullshit on this. A ban is not removing the Pokemon/Ability/whatever from the game, it is an agreement between the players not to use said Pokemon/Ability/whatever on their teams. We're not creating a new Pokemon, we're limiting an old one's use, and we're still simulating the game. And of course it's in our power to make these kind of bans. We, as a collective of Pokemon fans, have the ability to do whatever we damn well want to in regards to bans, as long as it is allowable within the game mechanics. Level limiting, banning abilities/movesets, whatever, we are able to do it if we so choose. Whether we should do so, however, is a different question (which I agree that we shouldn't, even on the subject of Blaze Blaziken; after thinking about it more, there really isn't any viable reason to unban Blaze Blaziken that wouldn't give precedence to the more ridiculous moveset/level modifications besides that very [subjective] ridiculousness, plus the realization that HJK was contributive enough to Blaziken's brokenness to cast doubt on it being only Speed Boost that breaks it).

 

[alphatron]

I personally don't think deoxys-defense form was uber in fourth gen either. This gen, his main issues are NOT the overall offensive nature, but the dominance of tyranitar and scizor. As thoe pokemon existed last gen...

There isn't much of a difference between blaziken and the other uber pokemon. Blaziken recieved something that potentially pushed him over the edge and was banned. If flygon obtained smeargle's moveset and tinted lens, he would be banned to ubers straight away as well.

 

[Nkululeko]

I call bullshit on this. A ban is not removing the Pokemon/Ability/whatever from the game, it is an agreement between the players not to use said Pokemon/Ability/whatever on their teams. We're not creating a new Pokemon, we're limiting an old one's use, and we're still simulating the game. And of course it's in our power to make these kind of bans. We, as a collective of Pokemon fans, have the ability to do whatever we damn well want to in regards to bans, as long as it is allowable within the game mechanics. Level limiting, banning abilities/movesets, whatever, we are able to do it if we so choose. Whether we should do so, however, is a different question (which I agree that we shouldn't, even on the subject of Blaze Blaziken; after thinking about it more, there really isn't any viable reason to unban Blaze Blaziken that wouldn't give precedence to the more ridiculous moveset/level modifications besides that very [subjective] ridiculousness, plus the realization that HJK was contributive enough to Blaziken's brokenness to cast doubt on it being only Speed Boost that breaks it).

I suggested Damp Politoed in UU but nobody cared. The only Pokemon people want treated specially is Blaziken, which is banned. The ability it has contributed to what made it broken in the first place, doesn't mean it's the only thing. I think we shouldn't because these kinds of bans assume that Blaziken is worse with Blaze rather than Speed Boost, which is true, and less useful and therefore less broken. That's called a nerf, intentionally making it worse for use in lower tiers. The pro-Blaziken crowd isn't getting the point that Blaziken is banned and the same logic can be applied to every Uber mon in the game and every mon in OU that we want in UU.

 

[JSND]

Back at last gen i tbh think Deo-D can thrive on though/ Only Ttar that i can think off to trouble it much. Seeing it can actualy wall heatran pp dry

But enough of that its last gen anyway

 

[Thorhammer]

Do I have to bring this up again? There are so many ways to nerf a given Pokémon. To nerf Blaziken, we could lower its level, or ban it in concert with Ninetales, or ban Speed Boost on it, or ban High Jump Kick on it, or ban Flare Blitz on it. The only reason you'd be going after Speed Boost is that Blaziken didn't have it "before". Balancing one metagame based on another, unrelated one is never a good idea. Pokémon species can at least be checked right before a non-ladder battle begins.

Indeed, there are so many ways to nerf a given Pokemon. And yet if we just allow one of those ways, which is by far the simplest, there won't be any harm.

There is no reason for Smogon to resist complex bans. People say they will alienate new players, but there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support that. Rather, all evidence right now points to new players intuitively identifying Blaze Blaziken and Speed boost Blaziken as different Pokemon and disliking Smogon for banning both. If you want to not alienate new players, you have to listen to what they're actually saying, not what you want them to say - and they're saying to allow Blaze Blaziken.

 

[KurashiDragon]

Indeed, there are so many ways to nerf a given Pokemon. And yet if we just allow one of those ways, which is by far the simplest, there won't be any harm.

There is no reason for Smogon to resist complex bans. People say they will alienate new players, but there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support that. Rather, all evidence right now points to new players intuitively identifying Blaze Blaziken and Speed boost Blaziken as different Pokemon and disliking Smogon for banning both. If you want to not alienate new players, you have to listen to what they're actually saying, not what you want them to say - and they're saying to allow Blaze Blaziken.

It's arguments like this that can go back and forth that prove my point. We may need to get a voting for where to draw the line and finally make a clearcut rule on what to say about the subject. It's not a democracy but it's something that should be done in order to stop alot of arguments.

At this argument@

The Smogon tiers don't belong to just the new players. If they belonged to certain people, most if not all weather would be gone. Reuniclus, Exadrill, Sand Veil Garchomp, and others would all be gone. At the same time Blaze Blaziken, Non-Dark Void Darkrai, Non-Seed Flare Skymin, and some other ubers would all come to uber with restrictions. I'm not saying a slippery slope (Although that is what I'm implying.) I'm saying that some of the most obvious stuff would be tried just because these new people come and demand it.

This metagame isn't just theirs, it's everyones. We decide fairly what pokemon should and shouldn't be banned. Not everyone's gonna like what is and isn't on the ban list but it's not like their inclined to stay if they need to. Also, if people are so mad that this stuff is on the ban list they should make a clear and logical statement and just what said pokemon needs to be placed in said tier. Banning is about logic in the eyes of the community. Voters have an understanding of the metagame (Though this isn't always the case. Sometimes even Voters are biased.) and the rank that allows them to vote. Their probably the best ones for tiering.

 

[Tobes]

If you're not saying it but are saying that you're implying it, why not just say it in the first place?

And please get off your soapbox. You're addressing a problem that doesn't even exist. This thread is ultimately irrelevant and primarily used for discussion. Nothing more. Even if people do nominate ridiculous things for voting, it doesn't mean those things will actually be voted on. The Suspect heads have a little more common sense than allowing a vote on Shaymin sans Seed Flare through.

 

[KurashiDragon]

If you're not saying it but are saying that you're implying it, why not just say it in the first place?

And please get off your soapbox. You're addressing a problem that doesn't even exist. This thread is ultimately irrelevant and primarily used for discussion. Nothing more. Even if people do nominate ridiculous things for voting, it doesn't mean those things will actually be voted on. The Suspect heads have a little more common sense than allowing a vote on Shaymin sans Seed Flare through.

I'm only implying it because I'm saying something else. To someone else that is what I'm implying. I only wanted to state that for relevance in the next argument.

"Get off your soapbox." I was only speaking from my own logic. If I sounded condescending, I apologize.

Though the voters do have more common sense than that, in general people tend to bring up things that the general community would find displeasing such as complex bans. Until we actually know where the line is these discussions, they'll keep coming up. The community needs rules and regulations for this matter. If not, things are gonna get worse before they get better. Pretty soon people would start arguing about the most petty things in the metagame.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

By banning a pokemon you are forcing it into a higher tier upon deciding that it is too powerful in the one it was in at the time said pokemon was found to be broken. By nature, banning a pokemon is putting it into a higher tier and all tiers serve as banlists for the tier below them, like how BL/Ubers serve as a UU/OU banlist respectively.

No your are not, you are not tiering it. A pokemon banned from UU might have no OU viablity. That same can sometimes be said for Ubers, where Doexys-N was banned, even though its outclassed by Doexys-A.

The bolded part simply isn't true for any banned pokemon. The fact is that people are asking for one pokemon to be let into OU and probably UU. I take it you didn't read my "power level" theory. By banning only abilities, thereby nerfing the pokemon(like using Blaziken with Blaze while knowing that Speed Boost is better) you are attempting to justify weakening the pokemon until it is no longer broken.

The line can be drawn without being subjective, its just that currently in Ubers there is no seperation between pure "Ubers" and ones that are just "OU-banned." And thats where I hit my wall, because yes currently smogon has never made an official distinction between the 2. To be honest this is where I hit my wall, but banning specific abilities from UU can work currently because of the distinction.

This is what confuses me. That is a set not a banlist, might need a protect slashed in but who cares blaziken is uber. Take one out and blaziken is still blaziken and blaziken is uber. The "all sorts of crazy stuff" doesn't apply because the pokemon was banned b/c it was too powerful and just because you can make it suck by using a worse ability, lowering levels or IVs doesn't make Blaziken's potential overall any different, that's why I'm against it.

I am just noting that many people use these examples to say what could be allowed if only the abilty was banned. And how if they really wanted to use a slippery slope argument, this is what they would get in the end, this insanity, which isn't even relevant to an ability, which if banned would never result in any of this. And I am not sure, without good attack ivs it might lose out on many KOs.

Neither is fine because the pokemon Blaziken is banned. If you can't do that with an ability, how did Blaziken do it with Speed Boost. The one is fine argument therefore doesn't apply because DW abilities aren't tiered differently and Blaziken was banned because of how well it abused an ability. And I know people argue that it's not all about Blaziken but this is getting ridiculous. Nobody's compaigning for Damp Politoed in UU now are they?

Again, you ban them not tier them differently. Politoed would simply never be UU, becuase it has a fine OU partner, separating them isn't needed, just like separating Umbreon in OU or UU isn't needed. Now if Drizzle-Politoed was banned, I would infact be all for allowing the other 2 abilities to be allowed.

 

[capefeather]

Indeed, there are so many ways to nerf a given Pokemon. And yet if we just allow one of those ways, which is by far the simplest, there won't be any harm.

And yet the measure of "simplicity" we seem to be using is:

Rather, all evidence right now points to new players intuitively identifying Blaze Blaziken and Speed boost Blaziken as different Pokemon and disliking Smogon for banning both.

"Intuition" is an extremely foolhardy way to decide things. It's an excuse not to look at a problem with the care that it deserves, so that we can pretend that we took it seriously. "Intuition" has slowed progress so many times in human history that it's not worth counting them. Intuition does have its place, as it can provide a general guide shaping what we want in a solution - but making actual rulings is not an appropriate place.

"Intuition" clouds our judgment of how the game works. If you really think about it, abilities are mechanically no different from items or even permanent statuses; it's just that most abilities are unavailable to a given species as opposed to most items being available. (There are also no examples of having no ability...) Moves really aren't that different, either; they just need to be executed. All of the combo bans that I mentioned are (or, at least, should be) equally easy/hard to implement, other than maybe level restrictions. And yet the presentation of this information by the game's user interface makes it seem as if moves, items and abilities are very different in some vague, unidentified way (despite the existence of Brightpowder + Sand Veil, Shell Bell + draining moves, Iron Barbs + Rough Skin + Rugged Helmet, etc.), and should be treated differently, too. And when we can't explain how they are different, we resort to the magical word "intuition"... a classic case of circular logic if I ever saw one.

You can claim that some combo ban is simpler than all the rest... but appealing to "intuition" will get you nowhere.

 

[jormungand201]

Why should it evolve? There's no problem with the system; you have a pokémon which is broken with its best set, you ban it. End of.



Hey guys I think we should be allowed to marry humans and our pets but not goats, why don't we just vote on where to draw the line?

Like everyone is saying, this isn't the same old Gen. 4, so why should it not change to meet the new challenges it is facing via voting?

Hey dude, if your into bestiality, I wont judge you for that. But it is in my power to vote to make it legal or illegal. If i could just use your extreme comparison, I'd compare you to a southern white bigot from the 1960s and Blaziken to a cute little black child that wants an education, but can't according to the laws of the time.

Voting is the only way of drawing the line. If a new player is confused by this rather simple explanation of banning ability+pokemon, then they could easily find the explanations and the voting that took place to allow it.

 

[Fvm]

Like everyone is saying, this isn't the same old Gen. 4, so why should it not change to meet the new challenges it is facing via voting?

Hey dude, if your into bestiality, I wont judge you for that. But it is in my power to vote to make it legal or illegal. If i could just use your extreme comparison, I'd compare you to a southern white bigot from the 1960s and Blaziken to a cute little black child that wants an education, but can't according to the laws of the time.

Voting is the only way of drawing the line. If a new player is confused by this rather simple explanation of banning ability+pokemon, then they could easily find the explanations and the voting that took place to allow it.

You do realize that by drawing a line, it means knowing in what huge circumstance should complex bans be done. And to me, I STILL Don't see the logic in people wanting Blaze Blaziken back. Speed Boost is a part of Blaziken. And if a Pokemon is broken. WE BAN IT AS A WHOLE! Drizzle + Swift Swim was done due to almost causing a bunch bans to happen, and Drizzle is not part of Rain Abusers, so it could be done. You want Blaze Blaziken back for the sake of having Blaziken back. We are trying to stick to simple bans here, so just because one happens, doesn't mean it can happen over, and over, and over.