np: UU Suspect Test Round 2 - Cold As Ice

[Heysup]

First of all banning Blaziken wasn't hypocritical.
Aldaron's proposal was completely different because it was a solution to save entire playstyles not just a pokemon(like you try to do).

That's not what I meant but what you're saying only further proves my point that just because we have combo bans does not mean we "need" to use a combo ban every time something is broken.

What I meant was that "using" combo bans to save something (doesn't matter what) that isn't broken is illogical when you had a situation in which that didn't happen.

And sorry, but if you think Froslass outside of hail is not a key aspect to an entire playstyle, then you're sadly mistaken.

Also you continue telling me that the case is different,but you don't explain me how...I explained to you why i believe that these 2 cases can be compared farily easily(blaziken and froslass) but all you say is that they are different.
Can you please elaborate?

When I responded to your last post, I felt maybe you missed my response to "some other guy's" post that had the exact same problem.....and then I realized you were the one I responded to in the first place. This means I've already explained it and answered you specifically......at least twice.

And now, you're also changing what my response was to (most of it is still relevant). I responded to when you said we are following OUs methods, I said a) UU =/= OU and b) Different Pokemon.

1. OU =/= UU

We do not follow their methods. We can choose to do what best fits the metagame. If that's a combo ban then it's a combo ban, if it isn't, then it isn't. This should be the only point I need for you to leave this alone.

2. Different Pokemon

Froslass and Blaziken function differently in different situations. One has an ability in every situation that makes it a broken sweeper where as Froslass has just one single situation in which it may be broken because it greys the area of the evasion clause. Also, I think SB Blaziken would have just been banned if people used Blaze Blaziken and thus cared about it.

Can we stop this now?

So when i find a poke that becomes broken under curtain circumstancses i can just nerf it by making a complicated ban like you want to do right?
If DW Regice gets released and breaks RU(under Hail of course) we should ban Regice + Snow Warning right?
According to your thinking of course.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter much either way - the same way it didn't "matter" with Blaziken since no one would Regice otherwise (though that may depend on a few things).

Closing this matter i honestly cannot understand how you cannot see the slippery slope that you combo ban creates.
If your ban happens then everyone is going to start nominating pokemon + ability combos and then you will see what a real mess means.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, I'm not sure if you are aware of this. Just because one event happens, does not mean another event will inevitably happen after, especially in the extreme you seem to be suggesting.

Additionally, we may or may not have more situations in which a combo ban will be necessary, but we might and I'd argue that if we can use a combo ban it would make a cleaner metagame, simply removing what's broken instead of removing a bunch of what isn't broken along with it.

I'd say this is my final post on the matter but I'm not sure. I'd like to think it is.

 

[badabing]

I hate that sand is standard now. I used to feel special

 

[Banedon]

Well then, draw a clear line, get it through policy review and then post it here. Would be very helpful, to say the least.

Instead of arguing schematics, why don't you take real action and get something done?

PS: as outlined in your article the slippery slope "is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question". Banning Snow Cloak + Snow Warning is not inevitable, and will at least require a majority vote to happen. But Aldaron's proposal did set a precedent, and we have no clear line what is bannable and what isn't. The way we have things set up now, people CAN nominate Snow Warning + Blizzard, or Stealth Rock + Spikes, or Froslass + Abomasnow. And, presumably, if we get enough nominations of those, we can vote to ban them and eventually ban them. If enough people decide to nominate Kyogre UU as long as the remaining 5 Pokemon on its team are Magikarp, then it might just happen because we have no clear line what is bannable and what isn't. Back in 4th gen, we did. Now, we do not.

Instead of arguing how Froslass and Blaziken aren't the same Pokemon our OU and UU aren't the same tier, go draw that dividing line that actually advances and refines our banning process.

 

[SJCrew]

A ban should never damage a playstyle, ever.

Stop saying this. We're not trying to preserve a playstyle, we're just trying to figure out what really is broken. If Hail is a broken playstyle I don't have any problem damaging it. You can kill it off for all I care. It was practically non-existent in Gen 4 UU when Abomasnow left the tier, so I'd just about say that's 'dead'. But the problem became pretty obvious to me when I missed V-create five times in one match on the ladder recently while she set up more Spikes.

I think our last order of business is deciding whether or not Froslass is important enough to save through complex ban. From what I'm seeing, no. We still have a lot of great Spikes users without her, so losing her on balance is inconsequential. Too much controversy over one Pokemon. We really do need to stop playing favorites and put her into BL when the time comes.

 

[alexwolf]

That's not what I meant but what you're saying only further proves my point that just because we have combo bans does not mean we "need" to use a combo ban every time something is broken.

What you mean that's not what you meant?
''With Blaziken, banning the whole Pokemon was hypocritical when you consider that they made another decision that completely contradicts it (Drizzle + swift swim).''
This is what you said!So tell me finally was it hypocritical yes or not?
And also i completely cannot see the point of the second part of your post.
You are the one that supports the complex ban in this situation i am the one that doesn't yet YOU are telling to me that the complex bans are not the only way to go?

What I meant was that "using" combo bans to save something (doesn't matter what) that isn't broken is illogical when you had a situation in which that didn't happen..

I cannot even understand this part so moving on...

And sorry, but if you think Froslass outside of hail is not a key aspect to an entire playstyle, then you're sadly mistaken.

When did i say that she isn't?
But the difference is that it is not the whole playstyle,while aldaron's proposal saved ENTIRE PLAYSTYLES,not key aspects of them.

When I responded to your last post, I felt maybe you missed my response to "some other guy's" post that had the exact same problem.....and then I realized you were the one I responded to in the first place. This means I've already explained it and answered you specifically......at least twice.

And now, you're also changing what my response was to (most of it is still relevant). I responded to when you said we are following OUs methods, I said a) UU =/= OU and b) Different Pokemon.

1. OU =/= UU

We do not follow their methods. We can choose to do what best fits the metagame. If that's a combo ban then it's a combo ban, if it isn't, then it isn't. This should be the only point I need for you to leave this alone.

Again you don't get me.There is a general banning code,and not one for each tier.So surely the bans that are made in each tier influence the others also in terms of policy!
Do you seriously disagree with this?
The banning principles are the same!
So if in OU we are not allowed to nerf a poke and we don't ban only the broken set but the whole broken mon i don't understand why you believe that in uu something different must happen.

2. Different Pokemon

Froslass and Blaziken function differently in different situations. One has an ability in every situation that makes it a broken sweeper where as Froslass has just one single situation in which it may be broken because it greys the area of the evasion clause. Also, I think SB Blaziken would have just been banned if people used Blaze Blaziken and thus cared about it.

Man you must focus on the point not disagree to disagree.The point is that both pokes are broken because of weather support.
The situation is almost identical and i cannot understand how you still deny to see it...
Also Blaziken wasn't a broken sweeper regardless of weather.Although this can be argued.
Anyway to talk about things that are well known and are facts how about we talk about Froslass and Garchomp?
Both have just one single situation in which they may be(or are) broken because they grey the area of the evasion clause.
These are your words when you talked about Froslass.And the same can be said for Garchomp.I am sure that most competent players know that Garchomp got banned 'cause of SV.If it wasn't for this it would still be OU.
And so we banned the pokemon,and not the combination of the pokemon and the ability.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter much either way - the same way it didn't "matter" with Blaziken since no one would Regice otherwise (though that may depend on a few things).

Ok!

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, I'm not sure if you are aware of this. Just because one event happens, does not mean another event will inevitably happen after, especially in the extreme you seem to be suggesting.

You set the extreme example not me.When you propose something so unecessary and inapropriate to the smogon's policy,it is logical that there will be extreme consequences.Also i don't understand and i don't care whether or not it is a logical fallacy,all i care about is that it will happen and it won't be nice.

Additionally, we may or may not have more situations in which a combo ban will be necessary, but we might and I'd argue that if we can use a combo ban it would make a cleaner metagame, simply removing what's broken instead of removing a bunch of what isn't broken along with it.

I'd say this is my final post on the matter but I'm not sure. I'd like to think it is.

Surely a complex ban could happen.And if it was right i would be ok with it.Like Aldaron's proposal.But complex bans are extreme measures that want much thinking and are supposed to solve huge problems.Not just let us nerf everything we like.
In suspect round 2 of OU there was a mess.A huge mess.So something needed to be done and a complex ban arrised as an extreme measure.
I don't see how a simple situation like this(Froslass abusing Snow Cloak)deserves such specail treat.

 

[Furosuto]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but samurott is a really good UU mon. I've had lots of people send in celebi, only to get skewer'd by megahorn and say "Wait, samurott can learn megahorn???". Swords Dance lets it get a good sweep, and aqua get helps it outspeed stuff.

 

[Heysup]

@ alexwolf

I've refuted what you've said numerous times and you have not brought anything new to the table with this post. And frankly...it's really difficult to understand what you're trying to say...

Instead of arguing schematics, why don't you take real action and get something done?

PS: as outlined in your article the slippery slope "is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question". Banning Snow Cloak + Snow Warning is not inevitable, and will at least require a majority vote to happen. But Aldaron's proposal did set a precedent, and we have no clear line what is bannable and what isn't. The way we have things set up now, people CAN nominate Snow Warning + Blizzard, or Stealth Rock + Spikes, or Froslass + Abomasnow. And, presumably, if we get enough nominations of those, we can vote to ban them and eventually ban them. If enough people decide to nominate Kyogre UU as long as the remaining 5 Pokemon on its team are Magikarp, then it might just happen because we have no clear line what is bannable and what isn't. Back in 4th gen, we did. Now, we do not.

Instead of arguing how Froslass and Blaziken aren't the same Pokemon our OU and UU aren't the same tier, go draw that dividing line that actually advances and refines our banning process.

That decision is not up to me, I see your point though, this argument is kind of silly.

I also see your point about the article, but what he's saying is that these things will inevitably happen and that's simply not true. We are free to consider most combo bans but sometimes they aren't appropriate. We can tell when it makes sense and when it won't for the most part. If I thought following OU was a valid point, I could easily just claim that they already know when to use a combo ban and when not to. They didn't just decide to ban EVs, moves, and other such "ridiculous" things all of the sudden.

If this whole thing were in fact up to me, I would probably draw the line with

a) If the Pokemon has no use outside of the situation in which it's broken (even in lower tiers), it is not worth a combo ban.
b) If the Pokemon broken or almost broken outside of the situation in which it's broken to the point in which the benefit from the situation is simply "icing in the cake" it is not worth a combo ban.
c) Only Abilities + Pokemon, Auto-weather + Pokemon, and Abilities + Auto-weather can be used as combo bans. This excludes:

i) entry hazards + Pokemon - if they are too easy to set up, the setup Pokemon is at fault. If they are icing on the cake, the abuser is at fault.
ii) Level - Level 100 can be used by all Pokemon, it's too difficult to come up with an objective measurement of fair power.
iii) EVs same as level
iv) moves - only on the bases that one move is found to be at fault, in which case the move must be also seen as too good on other Pokemon. Otherwise, it's just the Pokemon at fault.

Basically it puts a "within reason" aspect onto it as objectively as possible. But it's not that hard to see the within reason aspect most of the time.

I think our last order of business is deciding whether or not Froslass is important enough to save through complex ban. From what I'm seeing, no. We still have a lot of great Spikes users without her, so losing her on balance is inconsequential. Too much controversy over one Pokemon. We really do need to stop playing favorites and put her into BL when the time comes.

Important is a very dangerous word because it's bringing peoples subjectivity and bias into it. For example on one of my teams Froslass is the only Pokemon that fits...being a Spiker, fast Ice Beam, and Spin-Blocker. Some people who never use Froslass can say "who cares about Froslass it's not important there are other spikers" etc.

Important is a subjective word. I'd rather just simply ban the broken side of Froslass and leave the other side in. Spikestacking offense is not really the same without her. Same way hail isn't the same without Abomasnow (but with Snover).

 

[FlareBlitz]

Instead of arguing semantics (sorry it was bothering me), why don't you take real action and get something done?

Agreed. Pokemon is not nearly objective enough to have a "right" answer to every given problem. People can argue their points and that's fine, but it's apparent to me that both sides have legitimate concerns - I can see combo bans becoming annoyingly complex, just as I can see individual bans having unwanted impacts on areas of the metagame where the individual Pokemon is not broken.

Personally though, I don't think moving the debate to PR would accomplish anything. I think the UU tiering leads (or whoever) should just weigh in and say "we're not doing complex bans" or "we can do complex bans if you want", and that'll be the end of it. In fact, I seem to recall Jabba saying something similar, although his was more "i would prefer not to do combo bans if possible".

Our suspect testing process is partially democratic for a very good reason, but we do not need the userbase to be represented in every decision. The leaders of this site are leaders precisely because they (presumably) have the capacity to make unilateral decisions to solve deadlocked situations.

That general sentiment aside, I seriously don't see why we're discussing Froslass/Hail combo bans when 99% of the reason Froslass is so annoying in hail is because of Snow Cloak. I recognize that banning Snow Cloak also means we effectively ban Froslass for now, but it will get Cursed Body eventually; it seems somewhat frivolous to institute a complex ban for a temporary situation, although I can understand why people who favor spikestack offense might feel different.

 

[Banedon]

That decision is not up to me, I see your point though, this argument is kind of silly.

I also see your point about the article, but what he's saying is that these things will inevitably happen and that's simply not true. We are free to consider most combo bans but sometimes they aren't appropriate. We can tell when it makes sense and when it won't for the most part. If I thought following OU was a valid point, I could easily just claim that they already know when to use a combo ban and when not to. They didn't just decide to ban EVs, moves, and other such "ridiculous" things all of the sudden.

If this whole thing were in fact up to me, I would probably draw the line with

a) If the Pokemon has no use outside of the situation in which it's broken (even in lower tiers), it is not worth a combo ban.
b) If the Pokemon broken or almost broken outside of the situation in which it's broken to the point in which the benefit from the situation is simply "icing in the cake" it is not worth a combo ban.
c) Only Abilities + Pokemon, Auto-weather + Pokemon, and Abilities + Auto-weather can be used as combo bans. This excludes:

i) entry hazards + Pokemon - if they are too easy to set up, the setup Pokemon is at fault. If they are icing on the cake, the abuser is at fault.
ii) Level - Level 100 can be used by all Pokemon, it's too difficult to come up with an objective measurement of fair power.
iii) EVs same as level
iv) moves - only on the bases that one move is found to be at fault, in which case the move must be also seen as too good on other Pokemon. Otherwise, it's just the Pokemon at fault.

Basically it puts a "within reason" aspect onto it as objectively as possible. But it's not that hard to see the within reason aspect most of the time.

The problem is that what is "within reason" for you need not be within reason for someone else. We're already seeing that in the controversy around Froslass. Some people think Froslass herself should be banned, others want a combo ban, other people just want Snow Warning banned. The difference arises not because people disagree on what's broken, but because they disagree on your points a), b) and c).

I think you guys need to move this to PR. It's the only place where something will actually come out of the discussion. We could discuss it here ad infinitum, yet we won't get anywhere since we can't make the necessary decisions. A thread in PR will also help Jabba etc to decide with extra feedback from others involved in the tiering process, as well as help synchronize the procedure between UU and OU. Any decision is better than no decision imo, so please make one happen!

 

[Heysup]

The only difference discussing it here and pr would be is that some people wouldn't be able to participate. Jabba will likely make a decision after the admin's announcement is...discussing any tiering policy until then is kind of pointless no matter where it is.

 

[SJCrew]

Important is a very dangerous word because it's bringing peoples subjectivity and bias into it.

We have to. The idea of a 'broken' or centralizing force that makes competitive Pokemon worse off has no true denotation. Without the Uber characteristics, we don't even have guidelines. Frankly, all you have to do is be able to justify your position reasonably well in order to make tiering decisions. And at the end of the day, do you really need anything else?

What I'm saying is, when it comes time to vote for suspects, that's really all we have, and no one will know the difference when the ballots go in. Either way you spin it, the collateral damage is still pretty low. Non-broken sets have been banned in the past on the account of a Pokemon that became broken with just one set. Maybe we could have used a Specs or Trick Froslass last gen if we just banned its Spikes? Offensive with Destiny Bond? Who knows.

I just don't understand why Froslass's case is so different from literally anything else that could have had this problem, and other future suspects (say Stoutland became the Excadrill of UU or something; or more accurately, the future Sandslash with Sand Rush) that need a specific condition in order to be broken. Are you prepared to clause them all out?

 

[breh]

Ok, just out of curiosity:

is there anybody who would not support either of the following:

a ban on snow cloak
OR
a ban on froslass + hail

I want to guage opinions.

 

[sax king]

I don't support either. I really don't see what the big deal is. Froslass seems fine to me, it has 80 base SAtk. Sure, it can be difficult to hit, but it's still an 80% chance to hit something with weak defenses. I can afford to miss a few times. Hail doesn't seem like that big of a threat to me, and I really don't see what's so broken about it. If we still had access to brightpowder, we might have a problem, but for now we're fine.

I'd like to start talking about one of the more controversial pokemon that I'm still CERTAIN is broken. Chansey. It can be nominated and turned down 100000 times and I'll still bring it up each time. I hate chansey. People say use a physical wall breaker, but even they can't always tear through Chansey so easily. Unless you're running Heracross, this thing is a nuisance to all teams. Why haven't we banned it yet?

 

[SJCrew]

Chansey eats too much form residual damage, which is utterly ubiquitous in this metagame. She's a bit harder to keep alive in the average match than calcs would imply.

 

[WinstonShnozwick]

Fuck chansey, her team supporting skills are just too good. It would be nice to have her gone after what is it? the 3rd round of her being voted?

On the whole hail/froslass/snow cloak bitchfit, I'd go for either of snowcloak or frosslass/snowcloak+hail ban. I dont mind.

 

[Heysup]

We have to. The idea of a 'broken' or centralizing force that makes competitive Pokemon worse off has no true denotation. Without the Uber characteristics, we don't even have guidelines. Frankly, all you have to do is be able to justify your position reasonably well in order to make tiering decisions. And at the end of the day, do you really need anything else?

What I'm saying is, when it comes time to vote for suspects, that's really all we have, and no one will know the difference when the ballots go in. Either way you spin it, the collateral damage is still pretty low. Non-broken sets have been banned in the past on the account of a Pokemon that became broken with just one set. Maybe we could have used a Specs or Trick Froslass last gen if we just banned its Spikes? Offensive with Destiny Bond? Who knows.

What I meant by 'subjectivity and bias' is what I referred to in my post. Of course the term "broken" can mean two different things to two different people. That's why we vote. What I want to avoid is involving things that are not factors (ie 'caring about Froslass or not', or 'whether you use it or not'). Considering something important should not affect whether or not they are worth combo banning - we should just avoid unnecessarily blanket banning instead of using narrow bans. At least in my opinion.

I just don't understand why Froslass's case is so different from literally anything else that could have had this problem, and other future suspects (say Stoutland became the Excadrill of UU or something; or more accurately, the future Sandslash with Sand Rush) that need a specific condition in order to be broken. Are you prepared to clause them all out?

Short answer: Yes. (i've explained this many times in previous posts...)

 

[SGV]

I don't like the idea of a Froslass+Snow Warning ban. Nerfing Froslass just so we can keep it in UU is stupid; if Froslass breaks hail ban Froslass, if hail as a playstyle is broken, ban hail.

 

[alexwolf]

@Heysup.
Here is a quote from DetroitLolcat,that describes exactly my thoughts!And since you cannot understand my words try reading it:

Because if a Pokemon can run a broken set, then the Pokemon is broken. Except in really, really, really specific cases like Moody and UU Drought, we should stick to banning a Pokemon instead of an ability. Dragonite is NOT broken because of Multiscale (well, it's not broken with it either, but this is for the sake of argument), it's broken because of it's ability, stats, and movepool. If Dragonite had no moves and 1/1/1/1/1/1 stats, it wouldn't be broken because of Multiscale. Therefore, Multiscale is not a broken ability and Dragonite should be banned.

What makes a Pokemon's Ability separate from the Pokemon and the moves/stats not? One has to judge whether the Pokemon is broken because of the Ability or if the Ability is broken by itself. It's blatantly obvious that Dragonite is broken because of its Ability (this is still for argument's sake).

Blaziken wasn't broken because of its ability for the same reasons. It was broken because of its amazing movepool with Speed Boost.

Even on a really shitty mon, Moody would be broken. That's why Moody was banned. Even on a shitty mon like Vulpix in UU, Drought would be broken. That's why it was banned. If it was on a shitty mon, Speed Boost wouldn't be broken. That's why we banned Blaziken.

If it was on a shitty mon, Multiscale wouldn't be broken. That's why (if anything) Dragonite should be banned, not Multiscale.

(Though neither are broken).

The only difference in this post and our disagreement is that DetritLolcat talks about ability bans while you talk about Pokemon + Ability bans.
But still many of the points of this post can be applied in your case also.
Can you tell me why you believe that Froslass should be restricted from being used with Hail?
Since you seem to be thinking that Snow Cloak breaks Froslass.But this is not true.The combination of her movepool,stats,typing and ability breaks her.
So why do you arbitary chose to restrict her from using her ability instead of,for example,nerfing her stats or restricting her movepool?

 

[SHUCKLE MAN]

Reading all this, I still think the best solution is to simply ban a Pokemon.

I know Vulpix isn't broken without Drought, Froslass isn't broken without Hail, etc.

But reading all this, it just seems like everybody has like five different ideas as to how to solve this problem that we have. They all work, but we've got too many different possible solutions, that we're never going to agree. Banning an actual Pokemon (e.g. Abomasnow) might solve the problem. Yes, Abomasnow might not be broken if it didn't give a lot of its teammates extra evasiveness, or it might not be broken if it wasn't allowed any STAB moves, or whatever, but if banning the whole Pokemon would solve the problem, then I'm all for it.

4 years ago it was emphasized to ban as little as possible, since back then we had a tendency to ban 30-50 Pokemon from UU for practically no reason. But we've moved on from all that now, and there seems to be different problems with our tiering process at the moment, which I think we should adress, since all I'm reading here is circular arguements (where everybody is right and wrong at the same time).

 

[Shy Glizzy]

I don't support either. I really don't see what the big deal is. Froslass seems fine to me, it has 80 base SAtk. Sure, it can be difficult to hit, but it's still an 80% chance to hit something with weak defenses. I can afford to miss a few times. Hail doesn't seem like that big of a threat to me, and I really don't see what's so broken about it. If we still had access to brightpowder, we might have a problem, but for now we're fine.

I think most people agree that it's not an attacking set with froslass that is broken, but the fact that it can sub up until you (inevitably) miss, then spike, spread para, and either blizz spam or just dbond out.

 

[WinstonShnozwick]

Yeah, weavile outspeeds and kicks froslass's ass.

And I just don't understand how some people are so extreme about this ban. Froslass is not broken out of hail and if you think so then frankly, you can't be very good at battling. Hail as a playstyle is questionable, but I don't believe it's broken. The only problem is froslass dodging attacks. I really dont get how difficult it is to just BAN SNOW CLOAK. Do you really love beartic so much that you can't stand having him gone because his other ability is unreleased?

 

[Heysup]

@Heysup.
Here is a quote from DetroitLolcat,that describes exactly my thoughts!And since you cannot understand my words try reading it:
The only difference in this post and our disagreement is that DetritLolcat talks about ability bans while you talk about Pokemon + Ability bans.
But still many of the points of this post can be applied in your case also.
Can you tell me why you believe that Froslass should be restricted from being used with Hail?
Since you seem to be thinking that Snow Cloak breaks Froslass.But this is not true.The combination of her movepool,stats,typing and ability breaks her.
So why do you arbitary chose to restrict her from using her ability instead of,for example,nerfing her stats or restricting her movepool?

That post is irrelevant because it talks about banning a Pokemon vs ability, it doesn't talk about combo bans at all. I never argued about ability vs Pokemon, I argued about combo ban vs not combo ban.

You're putting words into my mouth and changing my position and then attacking that position, this is called a strawman fallacy.

On this distorted topic, you fail to even consider a simple formula that can show more logically whether a Pokemon or the combination of the pokemon and the situation (this is what I was arguing) is broken.

Pokemon X + Situation Y = Broken. Since Pokemon X is not broken without Situation Y, Pokemon X = not broken. So we can only ban Pokemon X + Situation Y, or just situation Y itself. Now comes the question whether or not situation Y is still broken without Pokemon X, but that's another question altogether.

Can you please just drop this? It's a dead topic.

Inevitably? No. Not even close. Froslass can sub up to 5 times in perfect conditions, so you still get plenty of chances to KO her before she get to do anything useful.

Actually it's very very close to a "sure" miss. Froslass has 20% chance to evade an attack, which can be converted into one miss every 5 attacks. Now as you stated, Froslass has 5 substitutes. This is also additionally boosted by the fact that Froslass gets a turn after it runs out of Substitutes. Of course, it's still just a percent game, but it's still very likely.

So yes, you're very very very likely to miss an attack before Froslass runs out of HP.

 

[Focus]

To put numbers to the effect of Snow Cloak on Froslass, here's the situation: Froslass switches in for free, is at full health, and is faster than the opposing pokemon. With Leftovers and a good HP number, that lets Froslass use Substitute up to 5 times. Since the probability of hitting Froslass all 6 turns is .8^6=.26, Froslass has a whopping 74% chance of getting at least 2 free turns to lay down Spikes, attack behind a sub, or spread Paralysis (reducing the opponent's chance of hitting an attack to .8*.75=60%).

This can be continued further, even assuming Froslass just lays down Spikes instead of opting for paralysis. From my count, there is a 42% chance for Froslass to get at least 3 free turns, an 11% chance to have at least 4 free turns (assuming Froslass uses Substitute whenever she can, factoring in Leftovers recovery, Froslass never uses Thunder Wave). In essence, Snow Cloak lets Froslass lay down all 3 layers of Spikes 42% of the time, under ideal circumstances and if Froslass does not bother with Thunder Wave or attacking.

If Froslass chooses to T-Wave its first free turn, this significantly fattens the tail end of the distribution, making the opposing pokemon more likely to potentially miss more times rather than fewer. And even if Froslass is extremely unlucky, it will have at least done something to support the team. Now one of her teammates has a free switch-in, and the other pokemon is weakened (or even KOed)/is paralyzed/has Spikes at its feet.

That is under ideal conditions for Froslass. None of this applies if Froslass is crippled by status, there is a sandstorm, or the opposing pokemon can specifically deal with Froslass (speed advantage, multi-hit moves, etc.). This is just to try to put numbers to Froslass's support capabilities in Hail.

 

[Godsend]

So, since this is a very dried out topic, I'd like to say that overall I'm really enjoying this metagame and I can't wait for the OU drops. Also, I've been trolling the ladder with a team of Bisharp, Honchkrow and a Sub/Bulk Up Krookadile that has been both fun and relatively successful. I'm also finding this meta to be very diverse, there aren't many cookie cutter teams, I like it.

 

[Heysup]

I still don't get why the "If Froslass gets to do something useful for the rest of her team, then Froslass is broken" argument is even brought up.
She's a support pokemon, she is supposed to do something useful for her team more easily than others.

You're going to disregard every single argument for Froslass + hail being broken just because Froslass is supposed to have an easy time setting up?

We could simply apply that logic to any Pokemon, right? Let's drop Rayquaza down into UU. It's going to sweep and 6-0 teams, but that's not broken at all because it's supposed to do that. I hope that illustrates how you can't just dismiss a point (or more) because it's supposed to happen.

Guess what, Ferrothorn in OU is practically guaranted to do the exact same things Froslass does in UU, with the sole difference that it relies on its bulk instead of evasion.
It's not that hard for Ferro to set multiple layers of spikes and/or paralyze something thanks to its bulk and resistances. It also has decent offensive capabilities and greatly benefits from a particular weather (rain).
Yet Ferrothorn is not considered broken by anyone.

Ferrothorn and Froslass are the same, except one relies on typing and bulk and the other relies on her ability. As an added bonus, Froslass can also block rapid spin, but at the cost of having overall bad stats, several bad weaknesses and few resistances. She's just good at what she does, but not broken at all.

OU is not the same metagame. No one considering Ferrothorn broken only suggests that you severely underestimate the differences between OU Ferrothorn and UU Froslass. The trouble when people bring up OU Pokemon is that they don't tend to make coefficients, sometimes because they aren't there or easy to see. Ferrothorn has better stats than Froslass in OU, but Froslass compared to UU is obviously not the same comparison.

I'm also confused that you think that the only thing Froslass does is set up Spikes. It also packs Blizzard and hail residual damage. The Pokemon it can't kill = Spike bait (in Hail).

Not to mention, if Froslass had immense bulk and could set up hazards similarly to Ferrothorn, then it wouldn't be broken. Remember that Pokemon that doesn't get used all that often called Deoxys-D? Bulky, can set up hazards, and even has recovery. Evasion surpasses any bulk because it can survive any attack like that while Ferrothorn can't survive any Fire-type attacks (and few Fighting). Speed surpasses any sort of offensive benefits as well, it can avoid Taunt and make the first move most turns.

It's not like naming two counters has ever been considered a valid way of reasoning that something isn't broken.

I'm leaning more towards hail being broken than Froslass anyway, but your arguments don't really refute Froslass's brokeness in hail.