np: OU Suspect Testing Round 4 - Blaze of Glory

[Mario With Lasers]

Well I'm surprised Drizzle is still OU... but it's not like I don't like this. ENSLAVE THUNDURUSSSSSSS

That's the biggest hurdle other than time for me, I hate using suspects or things which are considered broken. One of the main reasons I've never used an offensive SandStorm team in Gen 5, becaue I see Excadrill and Garchomp [Under the sand], as broken.

...Landorus and Terrakion...

Like i said its not even about creating a good metagame anymore its about getting reqs. Every team is the exact same thing. Who wants that? Its gotten so bad that everyone has to steal one team (enter the dragon) to get reqs. Fun fun fun. Not bitching. Telling the truth.

On the other hand, if we didn't have Suspect test after suspect test, would people steal teams to get reqs as you say...?

I know you want weather banned, but I guess you are looking at this problem the wrong way (if there's one).

We received more new Pokemon in one generation than ever before, new abilities, new moves, and had some old Pokes buffed up to a useable level. By some unnatural force of nature, there are less viable Pokes in OU at this point than there was during the late DPPt era (which was honestly pretty limited as it was..).

Using DPPt's standard cut-off (3.41%), BW OU has 50+ pokémon and people post in the usage stats threads they're surprised X or Y aren't OU; on the other hand, DPPt OU had, like, 45 pokémon by the end of the generation, with people complaining in every single usage stats thread X and Y and Z were still OU.


Now you're just looking silly.

 

[Ewil]

So disappointed about the non-pokémon vote T_T hope that at least drizzle goes, but nope ç_ç

Can't wait Tuesday :P

 

[Pocket]

Admittedly, Drizzle is very controversial, as witnessed in the Suspect Voting Thread: 32 voted for Ban, whereas 39 voted for Do Not Ban.

6 People did not vote, but I don't see their votes affecting the outcome.

Although I was surprised to see Drizzle staying intact, the polling results do accurately represent the community's (at least the competitive side) position on weather. I am satisfied with the outcome.

Whoever wants the Council back needs to realize that it would be more biased and eschewed from the overall community's perception than the 70+ voters we had this round. Such a suggestion is ridiculously nonsensical.

 

[Blackdragonking]

YES YES YES!!!

This is what people fail to understand. If people would just drop their stupid ideals of what is the right way to win, and just try to win in the best legal way, then maybe they could have their opinions counted more.

I gather from the people I play with that it's not a failure of understanding; people that hold ideals of what is the right way to win hold them because the alternative proposed isn't just odious to them, it tends to be delivered in this exact kind of insulting, condescending tone.

It's one thing to explain the way people who play to win think, but the undisguised contempt for people that sacrifice optimized winning potential for fun is something I've always hated about competitive communities. :/

 

[mien]

But you just said that last gen's balance was achieved at the end of 2 years of testing and banning. You're saying that you don't want that to happen again, therefore you DON'T want a balanced 5th gen metagame?

I'm not saying that i 'don't want it'. I'm just saying that after playing the balanced gen 4 metagame for a while i didn't felt that it was worth all the effort and controversy. I enjoyed the metagame just as much as i did before and nothing more, nor did my win rate increase of decrease by achieving this balance.

It's one thing to explain the way people who play to win think, but the undisguised contempt for people that sacrifice optimized winning potential for fun is something I've always hated about competitive communities. :/

We don't mind if people think differently. It's just that those people who do not strive for an optimized winning potential shouldn't be participating in our discussions regarding tiers for achieving a competitive metagame. Besides for many of us winning as much battles as possible brings a lot of fun, as such playing competitively is not a sacrifice by any means.

 

[Mr_br_kill]

We don't mind if people think differently. It's just that those people who do not strive for an optimized winning potential shouldn't be participating in our discussions regarding tiers for achieving a competitive metagame. Besides for many of us winning as much battles as possible brings a lot of fun, as such playing competitively is not a sacrifice by any means.

I disagree. I will never use a whether team for I find them cheap, and winning by haring a cheap strategy doesn't give me the same satasfation as winning with a non-cheap non-whether team. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have chance to vote, or not participate in conversations. Being honorable doesn't make me a second class citizen.

 

[Matthew]

there's nothing honorable about it. You didn't use an effective strategy, that anyone can use, to get a chance to vote something you think is horrible for the metagame. So, yeah, you don't deserve to vote if you go by that shaky mentality. Plus there's no 'honor' in a competitive game, you try to win yo.

 

[Agent123]

People play a game for fun. If you guys enjoy winning, then by all means use a cookie-cutter team. Nobody will hold it avainst you. If you don't want to use a "cheap strategy" then use a non-weather team and play for fun.

tl;dr Let people play the way they want to play.

 

[Matthew]

well then you shouldn't care about what people vote in suspect if you're not even going to bother to try to do it. Play for fun, like you said

 

[Glen ^^]

I disagree. I will never use a whether team for I find them cheap, and winning by haring a cheap strategy doesn't give me the same satasfation as winning with a non-cheap non-whether team. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have chance to vote, or not participate in conversations. Being honorable doesn't make me a second class citizen.

You can discuss all you want, but in suspect tests, you're encouraged to abuse what you find broken to get the reqs and have your voice listened. That's why it's called a test round.

 

[Myrmidon]

I disagree. I will never use a whether team for I find them cheap, and winning by haring a cheap strategy doesn't give me the same satasfation as winning with a non-cheap non-whether team. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have chance to vote, or not participate in conversations. Being honorable doesn't make me a second class citizen.

cheap is defined by people who can't play the game, while they're losing.

I'm not saying pack 6 Serene Grace flinchers and cal it a day, or anything...but there's nothing wrong with weather. And if you're so gung-ho to prove that there is...well, prove it. Not by lsing, mind you...the glories of war are dictated by the winners.

Take a low-blow to your pride and run a weather team to get your ranking up. Earn your vote by winning, and saying "you know what? I tried [weather], and I found it too easy to net wins with it. I say it should be banned because it's unbalancing" instead of saying "I refuse to run weather and am thusly complaining about it because of this fact. Despite my lack of information about how these Pokemon interact and the delicate (humour me) balance of teambuilding within the restraints of teams...I don't like it because it beats me. Get rid of it."

 

[alphatron]

So far so good. Now I just need to wait for the remaining PO bugs to be fixed so I can continue playing again.

 

[jas61292]

I gather from the people I play with that it's not a failure of understanding; people that hold ideals of what is the right way to win hold them because the alternative proposed isn't just odious to them, it tends to be delivered in this exact kind of insulting, condescending tone.

It's one thing to explain the way people who play to win think, but the undisguised contempt for people that sacrifice optimized winning potential for fun is something I've always hated about competitive communities. :/

I hold no contempt for people who do no use things for the sake of fun. However, it is when those people start complaining about those things that they do not like that I am less accepting. I don't mind if people dislike things, but I do mind when people complain but don't attempt to do anything about it. Sure, that might mean breaking your own ideals, but when has any important change in anything ever come without people putting work into it. Things aren't just going to be handed to you, but if you want to work to get rid of things you think should not be used, then by all means, go ahead. I might not agree with what you want to change, but I will applaud you for going for it. But if you just complain without attempting to do anything (even if you don't like what you need to do), then yes, I will hold contempt for you.

 

[Mr_br_kill]

@Myrmidon my logic isn't "ban weather teams because I can't deal with them with my normal team" but "I don't use them in fairness to my opponent". I can deal with whether teams, and have beat them with my "inferior" strategy. I have gotten decently high in the ladder as well with my non-whether team, I just don't have the time to ladder constantly enough to have a shot at voting.

 

[Baldafor]

Well, I will try to explain the ideology of the non-competitor to those that don't understand, and visey-versey.

Scenario: All current Ubers are dropped into OU. Everything is legal if obtainable in-game. Street Pokemon essentially becomes Standard OU. This means things like Shell Smash Salamence and things are possible to have on your team. Anything goes!

Player A is the kind of player that plays to win no matter the cost. He/she is going to take every advantage of his knowledge of what wins, study winning pokemon teams, analyze and participate in tournaments, etc. They will be packing Choice Scarf No Guard Sheer Cold Machamp and Shell Smash Mewtwo and other downright crazy threats. The winning is what is fun to this person, nothing else tops that.

Player B is the kind of player that plays to win on his own terms. He/she enjoys developing their own strategy to go "against the grain" or to counter current top threats. This person is going to be using Sturdy Skarmory with speed EV's to outspeed and OHKO Machamp and other anti-metagame pokemon, as well as a few standard-ish mons to round out their team composition. Having their strategy win the game is most fun to this person, nothing else even comes close.

Player C is the kind of player that plays to have fun. He/she enjoys choosing which pokemon they use based on whether they have cool animations, or if they have a particularly interesting backstory in the anime. This player may still want to win, but under no circumstances will this player use any pokemon they think is "cheap" or "unfair" because they happened to have better stats or typing than a pokemon they fancy. This person is going to use Choice Scarf Butterfree to Whirlwind away threats like Machamp, whittling them down with Spikes set up by Garbodor, and use Grumpig as a special wall to try and soak those Shell Smash Psychics from Mewtwo. Playing the game with pokemon they like mean everything to this person, even over winning itself.

Essentially, the vast majority of people playing the game fall into the Player B and C categories. Unfortunately especially for Player C, a large number of the pokemon they like to use are not competitively viable and therefore they are left out of the vote. Even those that fall into the Player B category often don't earn the right to vote, but at least they have a shot at it.

One thing that Player B and C tend to have in common is that they will not use what is the most commonly used team strategy because that is not "their" strategy, as if they came up with it in the first place. By this point in Gen 5, there essentially are no original strategies anymore, so even I can't really explain the reasoning behind that.

Hopefully Mr. Wall of Text helps at least one person understand one or the other.

 

[mien]

@Myrmidon my logic isn't "ban weather teams because I can't deal with them with my normal team" but "I don't use them in fairness to my opponent". I can deal with whether teams, and have beat them with my "inferior" strategy. I have gotten decently high in the ladder as well with my non-whether team, I just don't have the time to ladder constantly enough to have a shot at voting.

Well if weather teams aren't a problem for you than why are you saying weather teams are 'dishonorable' in the first place.

 

[Myrmidon]

which is fine and dandy. I wholeheartedly respect your way of playing, and I take the same sort of approach with my local metagame (I use mostly UU stuff in an OU environment because the meta is a little...lacking...)

I look at it this way, though: This isn't a metagame yet, on PO. It's a suspect ladder. And on a suspect ladder, he point is to see that X is banworthy, and Y is not, correct?

Fine, so you've got your standards, and you don't believe in sneaky and underhanded and unfair plays and the lot...but look at it this way:

The only way this issue is going to be resolved is if someone like you...someone who is willing to stick to their guns and won't be swayed by a "I'm winning with it, so I like it now" mentality...makes it up to the voter's block.

Yes, this may invlove cavorting with the enemy, but it's for the greater good. Anyone who can run weather, make it to the top, and STILL stick to their guns about it being bad is the kind of person we need up there...not just someone who can win a lot.

Sorry if my post sounded like a direct attack at you, but this is essentially what I meant...I just suck at relaying ideas...

 

[alphatron]

To me, anyone who doesn't use weather because it is a cheap strategy sounds no better than I was when I first started playing pokemon competitively. I refused to use Blissey, simply because I thought it was a cheap wall, and that everyone used it.

Then again, I've wanted nothing banned after the drizzle+swift swim axe. Even Blaziken, whom I just prepared my team to fight against (though I did have to admit, the means you had to go through to beat him were borderline ridiculous).

Let's talk about counters. When someone switches in a threat, why must you ALWAYS switch to your counter? In my experience throught battling and through watching battles, switching to counters is not always needed. Pokemon battles are not one on one fights, and there are many factors that determine how the fight will go beyond, "My opponent switched in X on my Y. Time to immeadiately switch to counter pokemon Z."

Let's say for example, I lead a battle with Bulk up Gallade and my opponent leads with tyranitar. I have the momentum here, and I use bulk up when tyranitar switches to...whatever else is one my opponent's team. Let's say that I use Bulk Up as my opponent switches to Excadrill, because Excadrill can ohko Sword's Dance Gallade and my opponent expected a sword's dance from me instead. So now I have a BU Gallade at +1/+1 and my opponent has in one of the top threats in the metagame. Am I going to switch to my Excadrill counter? No! I'm going to use Drain Punch as a shurg off Excadrill's hit (if he stays in) or force him out and continue doing whatever it was I was doing.

Pokemon battles are mainly about outplaying your opponent.I'm well aware of what a counter is and how they work, but why do most people feel as though such things are always needed to succeed in this metagame. We have long since banned the likes of Shaymin-S and Darkrai, so the pokemon in the metagame now no longer require counters under the grounds that you will be utterly swept if you weren't carrying a counter to begin with. What about all those turns before your opponent switched in garchomp? Were you unable to put on any offensive pressure or set up anything at all?

 

[Nkululeko]

I disagree. I will never use a whether team for I find them cheap, and winning by haring a cheap strategy doesn't give me the same satasfation as winning with a non-cheap non-whether team. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have chance to vote, or not participate in conversations. Being honorable doesn't make me a second class citizen.

Your adherence to your definition of honorable behavior is admirable but the fact is the test round was made to determine if a certain aspect of the game is too powerful for fair, competitive play to occur within the tier. Your honor should be a personal trophy you hold at the end of the day, not an excuse for not winning often enough against strategies or pokemon that are suspected of being broken. Whether or not weather is cheap, is highly subjective and subject for debate, however for the sake of honor you shouldn't belittle another players acheivement of voting reqs since the entire purpose is to pool a list of the most effective players and rely on their judgement. If that is wrong or not is a distinction left up to the individual, but if you intend to act under the banner of honor, then you should honor another player's decision.

You can discuss all you want, but in suspect tests, you're encouraged to abuse what you find broken to get the reqs and have your voice listened. That's why it's called a test round.

I agree largely with what you and Gen Empoleon have been saying here, which is that if something is suspect then players should make some effort to use it in order to gain some insight into how the pokemon/strategy works out in the competitive metagame. The goal is to reach a certain rank, and if the "prize" is voicing your opinion about whether something is too broken for the metagame then it's in your best interest to try it out to see if it's broken for yourself so that if you get the reqs you have some knowledge of what you're talking about. Some people seem to forget that the reqs for voting neccecitate and reflect effectiveness over difficulty in execution.

 

[Pocket]

Could not have said it better than you, Nkululeko. I also agree with Gen. Empoleon's posts and alphatron's posts.

Alphatron also raises a good point. Using a cookie cutter team is not the only way to succeed. I believe that creativity allows for a much more better success than using a predictable bog standard team. This is because people are not as familiar or prepared to deal with an underrated threat. This also requires great insight of the current metagame, and determining which overlooked monster can shine (IE LO Sceptile / Aerodactyl in Gen IV).

You can be creative, but only after you learn the metagame. Don't expect to be successful with the first creative team you have conceived.

Thus being successful requires more than just a standard team, but the person's understanding of the current trends and then using this knowledge to his or her advantage.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Take a low-blow to your pride and run a weather team to get your ranking up. Earn your vote by winning, and saying "you know what? I tried [weather], and I found it too easy to net wins with it. I say it should be banned because it's unbalancing" instead of saying "I refuse to run weather and am thusly complaining about it because of this fact. Despite my lack of information about how these Pokemon interact and the delicate (humour me) balance of teambuilding within the restraints of teams...I don't like it because it beats me. Get rid of it."

You know what? I use rain. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I use rain. I STILL think rain is broken, because it WAS easy to net wins. I joined too late to make voting this round, but even though rain gets me wins, I still want it banned.

which is fine and dandy. I wholeheartedly respect your way of playing, and I take the same sort of approach with my local metagame (I use mostly UU stuff in an OU environment because the meta is a little...lacking...)

I look at it this way, though: This isn't a metagame yet, on PO. It's a suspect ladder. And on a suspect ladder, he point is to see that X is banworthy, and Y is not, correct?

Fine, so you've got your standards, and you don't believe in sneaky and underhanded and unfair plays and the lot...but look at it this way:

The only way this issue is going to be resolved is if someone like you...someone who is willing to stick to their guns and won't be swayed by a "I'm winning with it, so I like it now" mentality...makes it up to the voter's block.

Yes, this may invlove cavorting with the enemy, but it's for the greater good. Anyone who can run weather, make it to the top, and STILL stick to their guns about it being bad is the kind of person we need up there...not just someone who can win a lot.

Sorry if my post sounded like a direct attack at you, but this is essentially what I meant...I just suck at relaying ideas...

See, this is the problem. I don't think that a majority of voters this round laddered and strived to get to the top. They just used a weather team, think weather is ok and then find themselves at the top, able to vote. What do they vote for? for their strategy to be uber? of course not.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

You can delete your posts as long as they're not in a locked thread!

See, this is the problem. I don't think that a majority of voters this round laddered and strived to get to the top. They just used a weather team, think weather is ok and then find themselves at the top, able to vote. What do they vote for? for their strategy to be uber? of course not.

Well, they really wouldn't vote for their strategy to be Uber if they grab a weather team and find it "ok" instead of "broken"... They want to preserve the status quo not for some obscure reason, but merely because they see nothing wrong with it. I'd dare saying a lot of people who get nominations didn't even bother much with the voting, and went to vote for everything to be OU simply because they saw nothing wrong with the metagame.

 

[Myrmidon]

@ Gato

that's exactly my point. The anti-rainers might not make it this round, but I'm sure it'll come up again. You've got the right idea, I've no qualms with you...I have issues with people who won't use rain to fight rain...or those who hate rain, use it, then love it (I know people like this...the bastards...)

 

[Alice]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether we agree with each other or not.
But can I ask, why do you voters, want weather to stay?
What is your reasoning because I don't think I've heard most of you explain yourselves.

(Side Note: Didn't mean for that to sound rude, because I realise it does sound that way, but I just want an honest answer for once and for all.)

Because as somebody said before, gen 5 is a NEW metagame, not gen4 v.2.0 -_-; just as in GSC stall was the thing to deal with, or gen4 changed a lot of things with the physical/special split, gen 5 is all about weather, so I think dealing with it is the way to go. And I don't feel it's as bad as many people think, -from my experience I laddered with a non-weather team (and half the mons were UU) and got to the 1500 benchmark for this suspect test. I also tried to ladder with a drizzle team and didn't fare so well, tho I admit sometimes rain abusers can be overwhelming...-

And btw, I feel that gen5 has become so complex with new abilities, the auto-weather, and a lot of new mons that having new "complex" rules isn't as crazy/stupid/nonsense as many people think. I believe that in order to deal with more complex things it's ok to follow a more complex approach (such as complex bans for instance). It's ok to try to keep things as simple as they can be, but if that simplicity is no longer enough to deal with more complicated environments, things such as complex-bans become available and (arguably) better options.

 

[Agent123]

Banning weather has been shot down two to three times already. I think it's time for you guys to give up and accept that weather is staying.

For anti-weather guys, here are the options:

1. Continue advocating for the ban of weather (good luck)
2. Suck it up and deal with it.
3. Move to UU.
4. Move to another competitive game.

As for me, I've decided to move to YGO lol. I hear they started a website called Dueling Network that's pretty cool.