By placing particular Pokemon in tiers that can handle any particular set, we allow players to have more choice overall. If what you want is to use anything, then play the Anything Goes tier. If you want a little more freedom than OU, but not the chaos that is AG, play Ubers. Ultimately, by creating multiple tiers, we don't have to trim Pokemon like bonsai trees in the manner you're proposing. If we had one enormous tier with everything in it, we wouldn't be able to use certain sets because the metagame would be dictated by whatever "objective balance" (something I find really ambiguous and impossible to agree with) we've established as the standard for acceptable.It certainly doesn't sound like removing mons from play entirely gives people the "freedom to use whichever sets ... [and] Pokémon they choose" it sounds like the exact opposite. It's certainly a move that game developers would consider lazy or at least suboptimal. It's a shame that GF doesn't bother to balance their own game appropriately, but the downside to a community run effort is that you get lost in your own hive-mind and implement balance changes based on your philosophy for said changes at times without regard for the larger impact of trying to stay consistent. Removing mons from tiers should be a last resort, it should not be your go to move. Again, it sounds to me that you have done this in previous generations and ended up with boring a metagame as a result.
Mewtwo with one attack. Is this a red herring I'm smelling? We both know that you can bring anything to it's logical conclusion and make it seem silly, but that doesn't mean that everything ends up at that logical conclusion. Slippery slopes are slippery but they're also weak arguments. Especially in this case.
No, my friend, this is not a slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are inappropriate if and only if you cannot prove they will actually come about. "Mewtwo with one attack" is no stranger an example than "Pheromosa without Quiver Dance". If we adopted a philosophy that let us have "Phero minus QD", we would be forced to answer the question, "Why can't we have Mewtwo in our tier if we can have Pheromosa?" We would be forced to answer this question for EVERYTHING we've banned, which would ultimately rely on us having to agree on some objective measure of balance, which we likely never will.
Honestly, saying you shouldn't try to build a perfect team is perhaps the least competitive thing you can say. Smogon is a competitive community first, and a balanced one second. Our goal is to create the best teams possible to win as much as possible, and this competitive nature is what invisibly guides us as contributors. If we are better able to build a better team by removing certain aspects to a metagame, we are obligated to start such a discussion. Since we are democratic here, we are able to better capture as many individual proclivities as we can (or, by our measures, at least 60% of them).And I think smogon is too ingrained in the idea that you should be able to prepare for everything. There are just too many mons running too many different sets for you to expect to be able to counter everything. If you're using two slots to counter all possible pheromosa sets, unless pheromosa is on every freaking team you're probably wasting resources. If QD/Z moves are a problem on this mon and they're too difficult to counter - address that. But countering AoA mosa or specs/scarf mosa is doable, you may not be able to counter both depending on your team composition, but that isn't necessarily the end of the world either. You can't expect to be able to build a perfect team.
EDIT: Responding to what you said above me.
Game Freak doesn't actively balance the game like Blizzard does with WoW or Overwatch. We at Smogon do what we can to pick up the slack. It's important to note that Smogon's metagame is not the same as Nintendo's own. Nintendo has its own rules and you can play by theirs if you prefer them.And then if the mon is not viable in Uber's you..... say goodbye?
This is not something game devs would do. I'll tell you that. In fact, it's something that game devs try to avoid at all costs. Removing game content does not make a healthy game.
QD isn't a broken set. It's the fact that you cannot prepare for QD and AoA and Scarf and Specs and Band (and all the Z crystals) all at once. It's a huge hindrance to the development of the metagame if you're forced to run one two or three Pokemon on every team along with being forced to run specific subpar sets on other Pokemon.Again - if one simple thing can be done to bring a mon in line, you should consider it over banning a mon entirely. Answer me this: QD sets are the problem right? You aren't worried so much about AoA, to stick with that example, it hurts, but you can beat it... right? Why are you so insistent that banning QD mosa is an unviable balancing tactic? I understand that it circles back to your distaste for complex bans, again using examples that are not realistic (Ubers with 40bp attacks, cmon...) - but if you truly care about the health of the metagame you should be looking at options like this.
Last edited: