np: UU - Here It Goes Again

[Heysup]

Latios, your analogy was an abomination of my argument to say the least.

What I said was:

If we do not know what an unbroken metagame is, or if we don't know if the Pokemon itself was the reason it was nominated (remember Stallrein?), then we cannot legitimately ban that Pokemon. Period. If we do not test the effects of banning this Pokemon before completely banning it, then how can we know we did the right thing? We dont. Thatis why we test the metagame to double check for errors (remember its bold nominations), and to see if banning the suspects fixed the broken metagame. Your analogy suggests that I say you can't remove a Pokemon because it checks other Pokemon, which is completely false. I am simply saying that if we don't KNOW who the real culprit is, we cant ban the Pokemon. Stallrein was nearly limbo'd because it was so obviously broken, but it was not the culprit of its brokeness, Abomasnow was.

You simply cant ban something without knowing that its the right thing to do, and the only way to know its the right plan of action is by playing WITHOUT the suspects to see if it fixed the issue or not. Otherwise you just banned a Pokemon based on what it did during the passed metagame, and not the current (especially for multiple suspects).

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

If we do not know what an unbroken metagame is, or if we don't know if the Pokemon itself was the reason it was nominated (remember Stallrein?), then we cannot legitimately ban that Pokemon. Period.

I've barely played at all in this current round of testing, and I'm probably not going to return to battling until the next phase, but even I can see that this statement is false, simply because we have yet to play in what is widely considered to be an unbroken metagame. This certainly wasn't the case for the first six suspects when Shaymin, Honchkrow and other controversial Pokemon were populating the so-called unbroken reference metagame, and it is unlikely to be the case now in this second stage.

I am not going to take sides in this discussion, all I will say is the idea that we are comparing a metagame with suspects to a base metagame that is somehow unbroken and well balanced is completely fallacious at this point. Decisions right now have to be made specifically on a cause-and-effect basis, not with reference to the metagame as an absolute whole.

 

[panamaxis]

I've noticed a lot more of the ghosts are running trick-scarf now, to screw over foresight top.

Moltres with recovery is as good as ever, I think I'll try to see if I can make a sucessful offensive team later.

 

[Head Smash]

Latios, your analogy was an abomination of my argument to say the least.

No. You're not clearly explaining yourself at all; you're just relentlessly spamming the same points that we cannot understand (no offense to you, but you are indeed doing so). His analogy was a perfect counterargument to your argument.

Here is what you are coming off as saying in a nutshell: [Pokemon X should not be banned unless we know that it "breaks" the metagame. We have to test to see if the metagame is still "broken" or not without Pokemon X.]

Alright, let's assume we have three Pokemon in a tier (I'm elaborating on Latios' analogy): Pokemon X, Pokemon Y, and Pokemon Z. X is considered broken and is thus nominated for suspect testing. Now, in the absence of X, Pokemon Y and Z rise to prominence and also seem to be "broken"--thus the metagame is not "fixed." The metagame is still "broken," perhaps even in a similar way, but it is not fair to say that for this simple reason Pokemon X should be unbanned. The new brokenness is more reflective of Y and Z than it is the absence of X (changing a single factor should not break a Pokemon unless it was mostly broken to begin with, in general).

Or, for a more down-to-earth example, assume that Registeel is deemed broken (it's obviously not broken, but make this assumption for a moment). Thus, we nominate it and ban it; in the new metagame, Yanmega becomes just as broken as Registeel was, and the metagame does not change as far as level of "brokenness" goes--does this mean that Registeel was not the culprit? No, certainly it was! This just means that Yanmega should be further investigated.

My next question is, what's a "broken" metagame even mean? What does a "broken" metagame look like? Please define a "broken metagame" for me. Is it an overcentralized metagame? In that case, why hasn't Scizor been banned? Is it a metagame in which case certain styles of play aren't able to be used? Alright, then I guess we should make Trick Room teams more viable by banning some key walls and fast Pokemon in OU. Etc.

I think we should stick to the three characteristics and only label the actual suspect Pokemon as broken--not the metagame. The problem people are having with your post is mostly the fact that you're referring to this arbitrary idea of "broken metagame" that's not established anywhere in the rules or previously agreed upon standards.

As for saying "I think we should know that the suspects were truly broken," well, to be frank, we already do. We don't need to test an environment without them in order to know that they were broken (remember LonelyNess' statement? "It's not 'Why use Crobat?' but rather 'Why NOT use Crobat?'").

I'm not complaining about the actual test, but I can see where people would not understand the purpose of it, since I myself don't see much use in conducting it.

 

[Heysup]

It would be terribly unfortunate if the people with that sort of logic did scientific tests and experiments.

Just because you think something is going to work, doesn't mean it will. An accurate example of this is what happens when you remove a part of a Grenade or bomb. You would assume removing something or cutting the power shuts off the device, but in most cases it would just explode. So by your logic, we would just do this anyway because you think it is the best course of action. BOOOM!

There are various other things, like adding a little bit of salt to fruit actually brings out the flavor where as one might think it would just make the fruit salty. Also, Water is one of the only liquids that can douse Fire even though most of them contain Water where as you could think that since something contains water, that it won't catch fire / explode.

How did we learn any of this? We learned it from TESTING. You can't make a final decision without testing the reaction first. If you remove the piece (or suspects) of the bomb (metagame) without knowing what it would do first, the bomb (metagame) may just explode. You never know until you test it. Theorymon doesn't work here, you need to see the results before making an accurate decision. That is why we are testing the suspectless metagame.

I personally don't care if we do the test or skip this part, but please realize there is a point to it. Testing the decisions effect on a metagame before making a final decision is definitely benefitial. Remember, we also have more than one suspect, and they are often connected with eachother (Crobat / Shaymin for exmaple).

 

[Tint]

If you remove the piece (or suspects) of the bomb (metagame) without knowing what it would do first, the bomb (metagame) may just explode. You never know until you test it. Theorymon doesn't work here, you need to see the results before making an accurate decision. That is why we are testing the suspectless metagame.

I personally don't care if we do the test or skip this part, but please realize there is a point to it. Testing the decisions effect on a metagame before making a final decision is definitely benefitial. Remember, we also have more than one suspect, and they are often connected with eachother (Crobat / Shaymin for exmaple).

The way your explaining things, we should keep broken pokemon in the tier, because there is a chance the metagame will become unbalanced or unstable, is stupid. If it's broken, then we ban it. If it means that we have to ban more things, so be it.

I understand the notion of trying not to be ban happy, but trying too hard not to ban things is equally wrong. When we moved all BL and NFE to UU, we knew there would be some banning involved, just as if we moved all Uber pokemon to Standard, it would involve some banning.

That aside, if we Registeel is broken, we ban it. If it makes Swellow broken, we do not keep a broken Registeel to keep Swellow unbroken. We ban them both. Once we test suspects, and find them to be broken, we can't advance that knowledge by not using them. Sure, we can find new broken pokemon, but then we should vote on suspects before the suspect-less metagame is started. In the case of Crobat, playing without it makes more sense, but not Honchkrow.

tl;dr
If something's broken ban it. Don't be so against banning that you keep broken things, or try to keep broken pokemon to keep other things from being broken.

The suspectless metagame can't tell us anything about the brokeness of Honchkrow. Point blank. I will keep saying this until someone gives me a reason not to.

 

[Head Smash]

Just because you think something is going to work, doesn't mean it will. An accurate example of this is what happens when you remove a part of a Grenade or bomb. You would assume removing something or cutting the power shuts off the device, but in most cases it would just explode. So by your logic, we would just do this anyway because you think it is the best course of action. BOOOM!

No, this is not an "accurate" example of anything, and your analogy is actually very far-fetched. Please at least attempt to stay within the context of competitive Pokemon.

The problem with your analogy is that it's not logical at all to assume that removing a part of the bomb will "shut off the device"--this would be the assumption only if the person handling the bomb totally lacked any foreknowledge of bombs and electronics in general. This is obviously not the case--regarding those whose nominations were accepted: do you really think they nominated the suspects without knowledge about them? Do you really think that the people whose nominations were good enough to be accepted had no prior experience using Crobat, Shaymin, and Honchkrow, or fighting against them? We're not noobs attempting to disarm some random bomb here. We're more like technicians with foresight and foreknowledge (and experience) trying to diffuse a dangerous electronic device. That would be a more proper analogy.

Diffusing a bomb by trying to simply dismantle it is the equivalent of "blind guessing." That's not even theorymon. Theorymon is at least educated guessing based on known facts; your example only demonstrates a shot in the dark. Obviously the distinction is great.

Regardless, though, this is not an example of theorymon, as I will explain below.

Theorymon doesn't work here, you need to see the results before making an accurate decision.

Except that this isn't a case of theorymon; we have indeed all used the suspects on our teams extensively and battled against them. We have no need to see what the metagame would be like without them because the problem is not their absence but their presence, and this is clear not because of theorymon but because of experience.

I will bring this next part to attention so that it doesn't get missed:

We nominated the suspects not because of theorymon but because of experience.

There has already been a great deal of testing conducted. This testing involved actually using the suspects and battling against them (as well as facing teams which did not have them and comparing the general effectiveness of those teams to the effectiveness of teams that did indeed use them).

You are implying that the point is that testing should not occur. This is not the point. The point is that testing has already occurred. What do we stand to gain by a month of testing an environment without the suspects?
Doing so:

1.) encourages people to vote on which metagame they "like" rather than which metagame is actually more stable and involves fewer "broken" Pokemon.

2.) gives the qualified voters about a month's gap, time enough to forget many of their original reasons for supporting the ban in the first place.

I suppose most of my post addressed to you will be ignored; again, it seems to me that instead of attempting to see the logical side of the opposing argument, you're just spamming your opinion. Please take a moment to at least understand where we are coming from before continuing the discussion. The argument is not "there should be no tests," but instead "there have already been enough tests, and prolonging the vote will have negative consequences."

Also, I'm still waiting for your definition of what a "broken metagame" looks like or is, or why exactly it should matter whether the metagame itself is "broken."

As far as I know, the goal of smogon is not to "try to keep as much unbanned as possible" but rather to ensure that no broken Pokemon are used in standard play. This means that, as the above post says, a balance between being ban-happy and cowering in banphobia must be achieved.

To the admins and mods: I don't want this turning into a heated debate. A reasonable explanation (preferably appealing to logic instead of just saying "this testing is necessary") would suffice, I believe, for everyone making the argument that the testing is unnecessary.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I happen to agree with all above points, and think that the idea of the "suspect-free metagame" is complete horseshit.

There's an argument about this for LC that right now, Gligar and Misdreavus are basically the current best counters to fighting types like Machop and Mankey, and some have expressed concern that this may cause them to be broken (which is stupid but whatever). Either way, the tiering of a broken Pokemon has nothing to do with other potentially broken Pokemon in the metagame, and this "testing time" is doing nothing but skewing the final results. Honestly, it's pretty terrible.

 

[cim]

Heysup, I really don't have the patience to respond to you fully in a civil manner, so I'll keep this short so you can understand where everyone (who is completely right) is coming from.

The logic others are providing makes perfect sense. It's downright insulting for you to come out and say that they shouldn't be scientists because their logic sucks so much, when Latios makes a great point. We're not seeking to only ban Pokémon where their brokenness outweighs their helpfulness. We want to ban everything that breaks the metagame. If by banning something clearly broken, other Pokémon become broken, we ban those too. And before anyone says that would just be an infinite cycle, that's why we have strict standards for what "broken" means and is.

It would be terribly unfortunate if the people with that sort of logic did scientific tests and experiments.

You can't make a final decision without testing the reaction first. If you remove the piece (or suspects) of the bomb (metagame) without knowing what it would do first, the bomb (metagame) may just explode. You never know until you test it.

I shouldn't have to say anything, but to be blunt, you're being a jerk and, if that first analogy is "bad" then yours is way worse.

Keep in mind, when we ban something, it doesn't _have_ to be permanent, and the Pokémon _has_ to be _breaking_ the metagame. If something is breaking the metagame, we don't keep it around because the positive effect it has outweighs the negatives.

 

[Heysup]

I see what you're saying, and I would like to apologize for my conduct on this issue, I just really dislike repeating my self.

I understand the argument now (I didn't quite see what you meant with the other posts for some reason), so I'm just going to say that I don't think this should just be a "bold banning" process. Nominations are one thing, but if we just give any random person the ability to say "this is broken", then I doubt anything positive will come out of this.

EDIT: Lol sorry I didn't simplify my post sooner Chris XD

 

[cim]

I see what you're saying, and I would like to apologize for my conduct on this issue, I just really dislike repeating my self.

My problem is that I don't see a good argument for not making sure we didn't screw up with bold nominations.

Nominating a Pokemon =/= Banning a Pokemon. Pokemon who may otherwise not even be brought up for banning get nominated because there is nothing to lose really. Not holding back really helps the process in the end, even if it takes longer.

I agree. If we don't have a two month test, we should just have the ban vote immediately after nominating. The fact that a Pokémon was given 3 bold noms should not be a reason to ban it. This is something everyone presumes will change with the policy.

Where as if we were going to just vote on whats nominated, then people would be way more hesitant to nominate stuff (at least I would, because there is no "we'll see if the metagame works without shaymin before we ban it").

You would change your mind about a Suspect if not having Shaymin made something else broken? Did you think it was broken in the first place? If not you shouldn't have nominated it.

I doubt Honchkrow would have even been nominated if we did this.

That's not a bad thing. People should be hesitant to ban anything.

I do agree that we don't need all of this time to test it, but having a couple weeks to test something so that we aren't going backwards and making an even more broken metagame,

You can't actually go forwards, though. There's only one direction you can go to fix a metagame, and that's more bans.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I see what you're saying, and I would like to apologize for my conduct on this issue, I just really dislike repeating my self.

I understand the argument now (I didn't quite see what you meant with the other posts for some reason), so I'm just going to say that I don't think this should just be a "bold banning" process.

I tend to agree. That's why I would suggest that the process be refined to the following:

At the beginning of the testing period, the metagame is tested without any suspects in mind. A rating requirement is posted at the beginning, saying that people meeting the rating requirement at the end of the testing period (probably a month) will be allowed to vote on whatever suspects are decided.

At the end of the testing period, a bold vote will be held just like normal to determine suspects. However, that's where the similarities end.

After suspects are decided, a vote should be held IMMEDIATELY. This guarantees that the people who are voting on the tiering of the suspects are people who are familiar with the metagame in which the suspects were present, and it ensures that the least amount of time between the suspect nomination and the suspect vote takes place. It eliminates all of the problems with the current process, and still keeps the successful bold nomination process.

Banned Pokemon can be revisited once the stable suspect-free metagame has been reached, since it tells us more to examine a Pokemon in a stable metagame than to examine this strange suspect-free metagame that is largely irrelevant.

 

[WJC3688]

What I find funny is that Honchkrow was nominated as a suspect but not Absol. They are incredibly similar. Honchkrow's only clear advantage is that it gets STAB Drill Peck, but likewise Absol gets Swords Dance which is also quite useful. I don't really understand why Honchkrow was chosen, but not Absol.

 

[Heysup]

That sounds great SDS.

@ WJC:

The main difference IS the flying-typing. Honchrow can switch into Earthquakes and even Seed Flares and still threaten the Pokemon in question, while Absol is absolutely smashed by everything.

Drill Peck definitely helps because it can OHKO Shaymin and Roserade for super effective damage, and Shaymin can easily beat Absol one on one.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Mainly the ground immunity and better defenses that make it easier to get into play. Also, neutrality to Fighting helps it more than one would think.

 

[Random Pizzaman]

Also, neutrality to Fighting helps it more than one would think.

This. Honchkrow isn't destroyed by a mach punch/vacuum wave, especially a faster one ( Toxicroak, Hitmonlee)

 

[Head Smash]

After suspects are decided, a vote should be held IMMEDIATELY.

I believe this is what was suggested originally by Latios, and it seems like the best method to apply.

As for Honchkrow, the Flying type helps it with dual STABs and perfect type coverage (getting that noob Toxicroak). The SR weak's a pain though.

 

[WJC3688]

Well, Absol can run Psycho Cut which does the same thing now that Shaymin is gone, hitting pretty much all the same Pokemon that Drill Peck did, it just doesn't hit as hard, which is indeed a letdown against stuff like defensive Hitmontop. Works just fine on Toxicroak and Roserade, though. Honchkrow, meanwhile, gets nothing which can function like Swords Dance, at all.

Honchkrow's defenses are not much better than Absol's, Honchkrow's defense tiers are approximately 113.1, compared to Absol's 111.8. The difference strikes me as even less significant considering how frail the two are in general (looking at the Defense Tiers chart Honchkrow is about on par with Azelf, while Absol is about on par with Floatzel or Gengar), and Absol has SR neutrality to compensate for his slightly lower defenses, anyway.

Honchkrow gets ground immunity, but I don't see much else which the Flying type is helping him switch into, whereas Absol has an easier time switching into stuff like weak BoltBeamers (Clefable, Pory2, etc.). Also, Absol's Attack and Speed are slightly higher.

I certainly agree that Honchkrow is better, but I do really question whether these differences, which seem fairly small, can make the difference between "broken" and "acceptable."

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

You'd be surprised how far Base 100 HP gets you in the Defenses department. Honch has +35 Base HP and -8 Def/SpD compared to Absol, which makes a huge difference.

Drill Peck gives actual secondary STAB to use against those that resist Dark, and the fact that it is stronger than Night Slash by 10 base power really helps. This gives Honch solid STAB that more than makes up for the difference in base power.

Also, Absol is so frail that Swords Dance is a ridiculous liability, and using it is generally a bad idea if you mispredict a switch or let a counter come in or something. Banded Hitmonlee with Mach Punch can be awesome, as it's fast, strong, has priority, and can switch into weak physical attacks extremely often.

I would never switch Absol into any of those things. Pory2 still has a solid 105 Special Attack, and its Ice Beam does a solid 39.48% - 46.86% damage uninvested. On top of that, Clefable tends to forego BoltBeam for either Seismic Toss (straight 35% damage), a crippling Thunder Wave, or crazy STAB Facade or LO Double-Edge. Absol doesn't want to switch into those, or really into anything other than a healing move or a support move.

Also, Absol is weak to Fighting, which really gives it a hell of a time when you consider the following:

1: Blaziken's Vacuum Wave rocks the shit out of Absol (93.73% - 110.70%) and can't even 2KO Honchkrow (41.35% - 48.68%).

2: Hitmontop's Mach Punch also rocks the shit out of Absol (126.20% - 149.08%), while Mach Punch does significantly less to Honchkrow.

3: Toxicroak's Vacuum Wave has a 33% chance of OHKO with SR from Modest, and a 100% chance of OHKO after SR and one LO use. Guess what it does to Honchkrow.

Also, Flying gives the following other cool resists: Ground immunity (lets it switch in for free on EQs and shit), Grass resistance (and Honchkrow scares the shit out of Grass-types with its strong Drill Peck), Bug (Yanmega can't OHKO it with non-LO Modest Bug Buzz).

All told, Absol is really inferior in most ways, and its little amount of bonus Attack and Speed don't make up for the big deals that are flying-based resistances, dual STAB, and better defenses.

 

[Darkvirus]

SDS your also forgot immunity to sleep which is another useful thing for honch over absol

 

[Random Pizzaman]

SDS your also forgot immunity to sleep which is another useful thing for honch over absol

Most Honchkrow tended to go for Super Luck, but Insomnia is definitely an advantage, making it an even easier switch into grass types

 

[Zoro]

Most Honchkrow tended to go for Super Luck, but Insomnia is definitely an advantage, making it an even easier switch into grass types

| Honchkrow | Ability | Insomnia | 66.5 |
| Honchkrow | Ability | Super Luck | 33.5 |

last month, so I wouldnt say ppl tended to go for Super Luck.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

i'll rephrase that for him. most honchkrow being used by good players tended to go for super luck.

the fighting neutral on honch is definitely what makes the difference imo. honestly when i used honchkrow i tended to go for the 25% crit night slash over drill peck most of the time anyway, so the addition of drill peck didn't really make a huge difference for me. but it's been clear to me that honchkrow is definitely better than absol and the only real thing i can attribute that to is the fighting neutral (the extra base hp to a certain degree too i guess)

 

[WJC3688]

You'd be surprised how far Base 100 HP gets you in the Defenses department. Honch has +35 Base HP and -8 Def/SpD compared to Absol, which makes a huge difference.

Unless this topic is wrong and false, it's about the difference between Azelf and Gengar's physical defenses. Personally I'd rather be neutral to SR.

the fact that it is stronger than Night Slash by 10 base power really helps.

Absol's higher Attack stat is more useful than that. Drill Peck is mainly good for the type coverage against fighters.

Also, Absol is so frail that Swords Dance is a ridiculous liability, and using it is generally a bad idea if you mispredict a switch or let a counter come in or something.

You're probably going to die if you mispredict with either one of these Pokemon, both are frail and both rely on prediction in many cases. On the other hand, assuming you predict correctly, Swords Dance provides Absol with an option which Honchkrow does not have.

I would never switch Absol into any of those things. Pory2 still has a solid 105 Special Attack, and its Ice Beam does a solid 39.48% - 46.86% damage uninvested.

Yes, less than 50%, meaning Absol comes in comfortably on that attack and proceeds to threaten with Superpower.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

That topic is basically completely pointless. 35 base HP goes a LONG way to making something bulkier, and those "defense tiers" honestly mean nothing. Not to mention that Honchkrow is immune to Spikes and Toxic Spikes, and with the way UU is shaping up, Spikes are infinitely better AND far more common than SR.

Also, regarding the whole "mispredict" thing, if you predict wrong with Honch you still do some damage, and probably pretty solid damage as well. Swords Dancing with Absol is a huge liability, and will bite you in the ass as much as it is useful.

Also, the resistances granted by Flying are ridiculously good at helping Honchkrow get in and stay in. Absol is so frail that it doesn't want to take even neutral attacks from weak enemies, and Psychic is a rare attacking type. Ground and Grass, on the other hand, are incredibly common, and being able to switch in on these and pose a huge threat can really turn games around.

Also, a note that I (and Jabba, and others that are smart) have said repeatedly. Fighting neutrality is HUGE. The fact that Blaziken, Hitmonlee, Hitmontop, even Croagunk can just effortlessly revenge kill you and there's nothing you can do about it is a huge problem for Absol, and one that Honchkrow doesn't have to deal with. It's the combination of power / resistances / difficulty to revenge / movepool that makes Honchkrow broken, and Absol's pretty much just got the power with none of the perks.