Oh God, not another Wobbuffet discussion!

[Cathy]

I'd just like to ask, since you realistically can't do anything to stop players avoiding Wobbuffet for their own personal reasons, what possible weight can be given to any statistics collected?

A perfectly normal weight. It doesn't matter why people are avoiding Wobbuffet. If he's not being used then he surely can't centralise anything. (Note: He is being used.) If he weren't being used and one day people smartened up and started using him and it became obvious that he's broken we could always ban him then. If Mewtwo were unbanned but no one used him then he would not be causing any centralisation because you could just build teams as though he did not exist, since no one uses him. How much people use a pokemon is definitely linked to its ability to cause centralisation. (Of course, in all likelihood, everybody would be using Mewtwo, but the example requires you to suppose that no one does for whatever reason -- perhaps some mythical "code of honour".)

You do mention a disturbing aspect of the psychological argument. If we accept it, then there is no way to test anything. For example, people in this topic have mentioned that WiFi tournament where Wobbuffet was tested. But if we follow the psychological argument line of reasoning, I could say players in that tournament refused to prepare for Wobbuffet, because they trusted people to follow the code of honour, and hence it appeared overpowered when it wasn't. Of course, that's absurd. The psychological argument is just a patently obvious attempt to avoid facing up to evidence, and the most baffling part is that the evidence on Wobbuffet is not even out yet!

I don't know whether it's centralising anything -- because the evidence isn't here yet! But it seems these people advocating the psychological argument want to get their counterarguments ready in advance... no matter what the result is, their personal convictions are unaffected, because their beliefs are safely insulated by psychological arguments. But this isn't inevitable. I don't think most players can seriously accept this psychological argument. It's just so ridiculous. Yet it seems to have a positive following in the last few replies.

It seems like this is just a rant but I have encountered the psychological argument far too many times over the last few days. It does not lead to useful discussion. It is just an attempt to avoid facing up to the evidence before the evidence has even been collected.

It all depends on the public's reception of him, which let's face it, would have been slightly less volatile if more warning had been given and more discussion allowed beforehand; "btw I'm unbanning wobbuffet okay" doesn't really warm people up to testing him.

I will concede that we did not give any obvious advance warning, although it was discussed in the chat. However, I think your analysis is wrong. With advance warning, we would have got the psychological argument just X days earlier than we got it now, and frankly the psychological argument is a huge waste of time, so if we avoided X days of messing around with it, then I am satisfied.

The psychological argument really strikes at the heart of the whole point of playing a competitive game, so refuting it is not just about Wobbuffet. So as not to be misunderstood: if the proponents of this argument had said "We haven't got around to improving our teams yet" etc. that would be perfectly legitimate, but that's not their argument; their argument is entirely of a psychological character, not a practical one -- not that they haven't improved their teams but that they claim that they -- and other players whom they consider respectable -- won't in light of rules that don't exist.

As soon as there is an actual announcement to all shoddy players that Wobbuffet use is allowed for testing purposes, and moveset changes are taken into consideration at the end of the month as well as the shift in Pokemon used, then yes we can accept statistics. Problem is, the only announcement about Wobbuffet on the ladder is scrolled off the screen when you log in and there are a lot of players turned off by the cheapness of it.

Actually, since it was pointed out, it is both at the top and the bottom of the welcome message. There's no reason you'd have to scroll to see it.

As for moves, we will definitely be doing an analysis of those, and they might be interesting for other purposes. For example, knowing what set is most popular on a pokemon with many popular sets--information that you could integrate into your pokemon play.

Your last sentence is just a restatement of the psychological argument.

 

[merubin]

Really, just dropping something into ladder without any warning is probably the most accurate way to test a Pokemon we have. Warning and especially a tournament lets people prepare in hard-to-determine ways. In ladder, you have people playing competetively for a ranking, with already established teams and you can watch those players and teams and whether and how they evolve to counter $newthreat. You don't have the same ability to monitor movesets and team changes if it were a tournament, and you don't have the same competetive element if it were unranked.

If people are too overcome with the psychological argument and Wobb is unbalancing, we should expect newer teams with Wobbuffet to assume high spots, or a sharp rise in Toxic/Shed Shell usage on uncommon Pokemon if Wobbuffet usage is low. If neither of those things happen and Wobbuffet usage is low, it's probably not a big deal and he probably doesn't deserve to stay in Ubers.

 

[SubVersion]

A perfectly normal weight. It doesn't matter why people are avoiding Wobbuffet. If he's not being used then he surely can't centralize anything. (Note: He is being used.) If he weren't being used and one day people smartened up and started using him and it became obvious that he's broken we could always ban him then.

I don't really agree with this. People avoiding a Pokemon because they don't want to use it, not because its a bad Pokemon, doesn't say much about how uber he is. It doesn't say anything about how un-uber he is, either. It just says people aren't using him and not much more than that.

You do mention a disturbing aspect of the psychological argument. If we accept it, then there is no way to test anything. For example, people in this topic have mentioned that WiFi tournament where Wobbuffet was tested. But if we follow the psychological argument line of reasoning, I could say players in that tournament refused to prepare for Wobbuffet, because they trusted people to follow the code of honour, and hence it appeared overpowered when it wasn't.

That's not entirely true. The "psychological argument" holds no merit if, for example, a tournament was held with the express purpose of using Wobbuffet. We can project this on to your example of Mewtwo: If you bumped Mewtwo straight down to OU, and we continue assuming that people would boycott him because of a "Code of Honor", you could be willing to bet that if you held a tournament just so people could use Mewtwo, he'd be on damn near every team and you'd get a good idea about how he'd affect the metagame.

And yes, I know; The Deoxys-E tournament was disappointing. I believe that was for one very obvious reason though: Deoxys-E isn't spectacular at anything. What good is it outspeeding everything if you can't take a hit and rarely OHKO? His sweeping is done better (if slower) by other Pokemon, making using him merely a matter of preference. Wobbuffet and Mewtwo alike would have a very different effect on a tournament held around them; Both offer huge advantages to any team and if you were in a tournament where you know most opponent will have a Wobb/Mewtwo themselves, it would just be silly for you not to have one. Deoxys-E is in fact so un-centralizing that nobody had to do anything different in the tournament to win. The same claim can't be made for Wobbuffet.

Of course, I'm not saying you should run a tournament for him. I'm just pointing out that eliminating the "psychological argument" isn't impossible under the right circumstances. I do not believe thrusting Wobb onto the ladder is "the right circumstance".

With advance warning, we would have got the psychological argument just X days earlier than we got it now, and frankly the psychological argument is a huge waste of time, so if we avoided X days of messing around with it, then I am satisfied.

That's needless pessimism. With proper warning that a test was going to take place and with proper reasons as to why, many people's responses could be shortened to "Well, I still think he's broken, and I think the test will prove it." Bursting out one day and saying "Well me and some dudes in the chat decided we should test Wobb, so we're going to do it right now" creates a volatile conflict right from the start. It instantly generates the idea that we, the user base, have no say or influence in what's happening on Shoddy. Without even letting people express their concerns before going gung-ho into the test, all that's really been achieved is getting a lot of people unnecessarily pissed off.

I should probably say that I've been using Wobbuffet religiously since he was allowed in OU. You seemed to get the idea that I was adhering to this imaginary "Code of Honor", when really I'm not. I agree with you that it's ridiculous, but you can't just ignore it because its stupid. It will have an unfavorable impact on the results of the test.

I'd be interested in hearing how you feel about a proposal brought up a couple of times in this thread: Creating an "OU+Wobb" tier on the Shoddy Battle server. That way, people worried about it effecting the ladder no longer have a complaint. People who don't like being used in a test can simply opt out. People convinced Wobbuffet is uber and avoiding him simply don't play in the tier with him. Then you've got everyone else who's keen to prove a point about Wobb (whether they think he's uber or otherwise) playing on the OU+Wobb tier. You get accurate results in the same time, with the psychological argument removed (people playing OU+Wobb are obviously playing it because they want to use/face Wobb), and data to work with that can be compared directly to that month's data for the non-Wobb OU. It seems like a much better approach all around than simply slapping him onto the ladder, the "core" of Shoddy Battle itself, and hoping things don't go boom.

 

[dekzeh]

The only good thing about Wobby being unbanned is that now I can use Honchkrow to it's full potential.

STAB'd Pursuit + Perish Song was asking for Wobby help!

Honchkrow is so sexy I could have sex with him.

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

I don't really agree with this. People avoiding a Pokemon because they don't want to use it, not because its a bad Pokemon, doesn't say much about how uber he is. It doesn't say anything about how un-uber he is, either. It just says people aren't using him and not much more than that.

Regardless of the reason behind it not being used, it still doesn't centralize the game if it isn't used.

That's not entirely true. The "psychological argument" holds no merit if, for example, a tournament was held with the express purpose of using Wobbuffet. We can project this on to your example of Mewtwo: If you bumped Mewtwo straight down to OU, and we continue assuming that people would boycott him because of a "Code of Honor", you could be willing to bet that if you held a tournament just so people could use Mewtwo, he'd be on damn near every team and you'd get a good idea about how he'd affect the metagame.

And yes, I know; The Deoxys-E tournament was disappointing. I believe that was for one very obvious reason though: Deoxys-E isn't spectacular at anything. What good is it outspeeding everything if you can't take a hit and rarely OHKO? His sweeping is done better (if slower) by other Pokemon, making using him merely a matter of preference. Wobbuffet and Mewtwo alike would have a very different effect on a tournament held around them; Both offer huge advantages to any team and if you were in a tournament where you know most opponent will have a Wobb/Mewtwo themselves, it would just be silly for you not to have one. Deoxys-E is in fact so un-centralizing that nobody had to do anything different in the tournament to win. The same claim can't be made for Wobbuffet.

This all pre-assumes that Wobbuffet is superior to most things in OU and is a centralizing force. Since Wobbuffet is currently being tested, it's safe to say that not everyone believes this is the case. You also seem to be proving Colin's point about testing on the ladder with your comment about a Mewtwo tournament. If a tournament is made specifically for a Pokemon, then the game will, by definition, be centered around that Pokemon. Putting it onto the ladder may be the least popular method of testing and it may not be 'perfect', but it is the most accurate method of testing available.

Also, this idea about a separate OU + Wobbuffet tier seems just as flawed as a tournament. It seems to me that you're far less likely to get accurate results the more 'voluntary' the testing is.

 

[Fenikkusu]

Regardless of the reason behind it not being used, it still doesn't centralize the game if it isn't used.

Actually, in wobbuffet's case, it's entirely possible for it to overcentralize the game if there's an increase in certain other moves (bp/U-turn/taunt/pursuit), pokemon (lol dugtrio combined with one of the switchouts) or possibly even shed shell, as a precaution against wobbuffet being used against your team. Overcentralization, in wobbuffet's case, is possible without him actually being used, because the threat of him is pretty significant since otherwise you can't "counter" him, save with prediction/revenge kills and that's not really a good answer since pretty much everything is beaten that way.

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

I think you're confusing 'change' with 'overcentralization'. An increase in moves to combat Wobbuffet isn't centralizing unless the number of used moves decreases instead of increases. There are enough moves to combat Wobbuffet that I don't see centralization being a problem.

 

[Exiled_Sicilian]

A perfectly normal weight. It doesn't matter why people are avoiding Wobbuffet. If he's not being used then he surely can't centralise anything. (Note: He is being used.) If he weren't being used and one day people smartened up and started using him and it became obvious that he's broken we could always ban him then. If Mewtwo were unbanned but no one used him then he would not be causing any centralisation because you could just build teams as though he did not exist, since no one uses him. How much people use a pokemon is definitely linked to its ability to cause centralisation. (Of course, in all likelihood, everybody would be using Mewtwo, but the example requires you to suppose that no one does for whatever reason -- perhaps some mythical "code of honour".)

You do mention a disturbing aspect of the psychological argument. If we accept it, then there is no way to test anything. For example, people in this topic have mentioned that WiFi tournament where Wobbuffet was tested. But if we follow the psychological argument line of reasoning, I could say players in that tournament refused to prepare for Wobbuffet, because they trusted people to follow the code of honour, and hence it appeared overpowered when it wasn't. Of course, that's absurd. The psychological argument is just a patently obvious attempt to avoid facing up to evidence, and the most baffling part is that the evidence on Wobbuffet is not even out yet!

I don't know whether it's centralising anything -- because the evidence isn't here yet! But it seems these people advocating the psychological argument want to get their counterarguments ready in advance... no matter what the result is, their personal convictions are unaffected, because their beliefs are safely insulated by psychological arguments. But this isn't inevitable. I don't think most players can seriously accept this psychological argument. It's just so ridiculous. Yet it seems to have a positive following in the last few replies.

It seems like this is just a rant but I have encountered the psychological argument far too many times over the last few days. It does not lead to useful discussion. It is just an attempt to avoid facing up to the evidence before the evidence has even been collected.

I will concede that we did not give any obvious advance warning, although it was discussed in the chat. However, I think your analysis is wrong. With advance warning, we would have got the psychological argument just X days earlier than we got it now, and frankly the psychological argument is a huge waste of time, so if we avoided X days of messing around with it, then I am satisfied.

The psychological argument really strikes at the heart of the whole point of playing a competitive game, so refuting it is not just about Wobbuffet. So as not to be misunderstood: if the proponents of this argument had said "We haven't got around to improving our teams yet" etc. that would be perfectly legitimate, but that's not their argument; their argument is entirely of a psychological character, not a practical one -- not that they haven't improved their teams but that they claim that they -- and other players whom they consider respectable -- won't in light of rules that don't exist.



Actually, since it was pointed out, it is both at the top and the bottom of the welcome message. There's no reason you'd have to scroll to see it.

As for moves, we will definitely be doing an analysis of those, and they might be interesting for other purposes. For example, knowing what set is most popular on a pokemon with many popular sets--information that you could integrate into your pokemon play.

Your last sentence is just a restatement of the psychological argument.

I myself can care less whether or not Wobbuffet comes back but I will state that I completely agree with everything stated. There will always be that certain amount of complaints and uprise coming from the people no matter what, for it is news and news attracts the media. I myself have done 4 years of Psychology and have learned a major factor. Humans are a very curious and boring people. We get excited off of the most simplistic things, and any news is widespread news to everyone.

No matter what the argument is, no matter who has won, or who is correct the fact stands that people just like to argue and lead heavy debates on who is right and who is wrong, all in the mean time nothing gets solved, people just want to be heard. It's a test of intelligence for us, like a dominance role.

So to sum this up, no matter if they gave warning, no matter if they were to relinquish something else instead or even if this topic never happened, there would be an argument somewhere, about something, still, because people like drama when their lives are boring at the moment. It gives us something to do.

All of this "discussion" for nothing since nothing will get changed, Wobbuffet will be unbanned and some people will use him. Can't change it, but everyone knows that, they just like to argue.

But I digress.

 

[Mekkah]

post of things that beat wobb, among others "hit it hard", "use a ghost they're not affected by counter their most common move is shadow ball which is special right" and "just explode"

UGH. You make my blood boil. Not only were all of these pointed out 4271889 times during the thread, but some of them could even be used to argue things like Rayquaza and Mewtwo aren't uber. Obviously, if something is going to cost you a Pokemon just to put a dent on it, that is not a very good method of dealing with a Pokemon. That's not a very good justification of anything.

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

One way to help balance Wobbuffet is to allow both players to see which Pokémon are on the opponent's team before the match begins (and before choosing a lead), a la Pokémon Battle Revolution. This allows you to take your opponent's Wobbuffet into account while the match is in progress. You might save your sleep move, for instance. You can also get a good idea of which Pokémon the Wobbuffet might try to help set up, which will help you decide which move to use against Wobbuffet. It also will ease prediction of switch-ins by your opponent's Wobbuffet. I am of the opinion that with or without Wobbuffet, this would be a good rule to implement, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Magmortified]

A perfectly normal weight. It doesn't matter why people are avoiding Wobbuffet. If he's not being used then he surely can't centralise anything. (Note: He is being used.) If he weren't being used and one day people smartened up and started using him and it became obvious that he's broken we could always ban him then.

And how long would that take, hmm? By the end of the year some people could still be opposed to using Wobbuffet while the thing runs people over in the meantime (if you're of the party that thinks it should be Uber). When everybody realizes Wobby won't go away, it'll have already caused a statistical skew if teams that run Wobbuffet do win a larger number of their games.

If Mewtwo were unbanned but no one used him then he would not be causing any centralisation because you could just build teams as though he did not exist, since no one uses him. How much people use a pokemon is definitely linked to its ability to cause centralisation. (Of course, in all likelihood, everybody would be using Mewtwo, but the example requires you to suppose that no one does for whatever reason -- perhaps some mythical "code of honour".)

So, would you support, say, an attack on Russia for whatever reason without taking into account that they can use Hydrogen bombs? Nobody seems to be using them nowadays.

To an extent, I don't really believe in the code of honor, because not everybody follows it. Taking Mewtwo again, for an example, the vast majority of people might not use it for the code of honor, but the few that don't follow such a code would likely be steamrolling over everything. Everybody and their grandmother doesn't have to be using it to prove it's overpowered, the question is if Wobby is overpowered. Which is why I'd support something like the Deoxys-E to test it, rather than dumping it into the metagame. North Korea wouldn't fire an Atomic bomb at anybody, because they know that the rest of the world would wipe them out if they do. The advantage is for other people to know that they can use Atomic bombs. Wobbuffet can work a similar way (minus the rest of the world wiping them out part), with the potential rise in U-Turners, Shed Shell, etc. even if Wobby ends up not being used.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

I think you're confusing 'change' with 'overcentralization'. An increase in moves to combat Wobbuffet isn't centralizing unless the number of used moves decreases instead of increases. There are enough moves to combat Wobbuffet that I don't see centralization being a problem.

I'd just like to reinforce this point here, because it is so excellent.

I see too many people bitching about how they would have to change up their team to counter Wobbuffet. That alone isn't enough to justify Wobbuffet's status as an Uber, that just makes it a major metagame threat. People already have to make their teams with the major threats in mind. All you really have to do is look through the RMT forum and you can find quite a few posts about a team being weak to Weavile/Infernape/Gyarados/Garchomp/etc.

Granted, that doesn't mean Wobbuffet isn't really Uber. I don't have enough experience to say one way or the other, I just don't like seeing faulty logic being thrown around.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

lol this is pokemon, you're thinking about it too hard if you're comparing it to hydrogen bombs and code of honors lol.

 

[Magmortified]

lol this is pokemon, you're thinking about it too hard if you're comparing it to hydrogen bombs and code of honors lol.

So what would you have me compare it to?

I don't see what the problem is with "thinking too hard". =P

 

[SlakingMaster]

I honestly don't know how wobbufet would do in OU, I'm not sure if he would really "centeralize" the metagame or make is so every team would need a counter for him.

One thing I know for sure though, Is I don't think wobbufet does well in ubers. I've tried him several times and he always seems to be the weak link compared to the other team members. Pehaps I'm not using him right but here's what seems to happen every time I use him

If I predict a set up such as swords dance, I usally encore. But one time (and this actually happened to me in netbattle ADV) my encore ended on the second turn, so the pokemon I encored got a two free set ups because they killed the pokemon I used to counter it (the oposing pokemon was kyogre so without dialga there was really no safe switch in)

If I predict a full fledge attacking stratagy, I usually would mirror coat or counter. But Since wobbufet has such low defenses he would usually get two hit KO'ed, the first attack would do about 70-80%, leaving him not able to switch into much else. After the first attack he woulden't be able to do much since he would die to the next attack without a chance to counter or mirror coat. Making him only really a one for one pokemon in ubers (at least for my experience). And with no healing move for wobbufet and almost no wish passers in ubers, I didn't find wobbufet very useful in ubers.

Wobbufet has failed me to many times, so really I've lost all faith in him.

Just because you can't switch anything into it does not automaticaly make it uber, because in uber so much stuff can pulverize it that wobuffet needs to watch out what he switchs into. I mean look at dugtrio he's far from uber even with his ability.

I don't play the OU metagame so I really don't know how wobbufet would impact the OU metagame but, I can say this for sure, I think he deserves a test because I think he really isn't that good in ubers. Not to say just because he's not good in ubers doens't mean he'll be super powerful game breaking in OU, but with what I've seen from wobbufet's perfomance, I doubt he'll be game breaking

 

[SubVersion]

Also, this idea about a separate OU + Wobbuffet tier seems just as flawed as a tournament. It seems to me that you're far less likely to get accurate results the more 'voluntary' the testing is.

You would get 100% willing participation from every person involved, no complaints (so 90% of this thread would never have happened), none of the frustration of a tournament where people don't show up or don't sign up by the deadline (people can join in whenever they please, for however long they please), and you can compare the usage statistics of that tier directly to the same month's usage seen in regular OU, which would give a pretty big indication of what changes the appearance of Wobb has instigated.

All the results for none of the mess.

Also, I understand the sentiment that "a tournament built around using a pokemon will become immediately centralized around that pokemon", but I think that idea was soundly disproven by the Deoxys-E tournament. Even though the purpose of the tournament was to test him, a lot of people didn't bother changing their teams (or using D-E at all) because it quickly became apparent that he couldn't do anything. The tournament built for him didn't become centralized around him because he's just not good enough. So saying that a tournament (or separate tier) made especially for Wobbuffet would instantly centralize around him... That seems to speak more for Wobbuffet's ability than it does for the "unreliability" of the tournament set-up.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

Encore has been improved to 4-8 turns this gen (opposed to the 2-5 turns in ADV).

So what classifies overcentralization? Clearly, some people don't think the mass use of U-Turn/Taunt/Baton Pass is enough to be called overcentralization. Does Wobbuffet have to dethrone Garchomp as the most used Pokemon in order to convince some people?

 

[KingFresh]

Encore has been improved to 4-8 turns this gen (opposed to the 2-5 turns in ADV).

So what classifies overcentralization? Clearly, some people don't think the mass use of U-Turn/Taunt/Baton Pass is enough to be called overcentralization. Does Wobbuffet have to dethrone Garchomp as the most used Pokemon in order to convince some people?

either that or everyone is gonna get tired of seeing wobb wreck the game's variety and make BL's less playable (yes i know there are ways around it but why mess up a whole moveset just to counter wobbuffet, come to find out hes not even there and you get wrecked otherwise.)

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

either that or everyone is gonna get tired of seeing wobb wreck the game's variety and make BL's less playable (yes i know there are ways around it but why mess up a whole moveset just to counter wobbuffet, come to find out hes not even there and you get wrecked otherwise.)

Could you explain how Wobbuffet makes BLs less playable any more than it makes OUs less playable?

 

[xcfrisco]

Encore has been improved to 4-8 turns this gen (opposed to the 2-5 turns in ADV).

So what classifies overcentralization? Clearly, some people don't think the mass use of U-Turn/Taunt/Baton Pass is enough to be called overcentralization. Does Wobbuffet have to dethrone Garchomp as the most used Pokemon in order to convince some people?

I'm quite interested in this too. What exactly will Colin and the other Shoddy staff be looking for when that statistics come out that makes or doesn't make Wobbuffet Uber? Deoxys' case was pretty clear cut seeing as he's on the latter end of the OU spectrum. But what's the cutoff point for Wobbuffet being Uber? Is it top 10? What if he's 11 or 12? etc, etc.

Its pretty safe to assume that usage won't be the only thing that goes into determining Wobb's viability. But, can anyone give me a way to quantitively define Wobb's overcentralization or lack there of?

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

If I understand, I think Wobbuffet is Über only if the usage of Pokémon is significantly less evenly distributed than it was without it. I don't think it really has much to do with the ranking of Wobbuffet. But I could easily be wrong about this.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Okay I'ma try to make an attempt at some logical thinking here...just an attempt..

Okay, if Wobbuffet is so overcentralizing, and is so all-godly-ever so powerful, and leads to so many sweeps. Now stay with me here. WHAT IF YOU USE IT?! And it leads to those things? If Wobbuffet is causing the other team to rape yours, then maybe you should use it yourself in attempt to rape other teams.

For example, if Kyogre is allowed, would I bitch about it being allowed? Or would I double click Shoddy as fast as I can and make my starter a Kyogre followed by 8023902932 water types?

Shit I'd be looking at any chance to win. If you're bitching about disallowing something, chances are you're probably playing to not lose as opposed to winning. And if you are, disregard this cause nothing else can help you about it.

 

[Raikou]

I'm quite interested in this too. What exactly will Colin and the other Shoddy staff be looking for when that statistics come out that makes or doesn't make Wobbuffet Uber? Deoxys' case was pretty clear cut seeing as he's on the latter end of the OU spectrum. But what's the cutoff point for Wobbuffet being Uber? Is it top 10? What if he's 11 or 12? etc, etc.

Its pretty safe to assume that usage won't be the only thing that goes into determining Wobb's viability. But, can anyone give me a way to quantitively define Wobb's overcentralization or lack there of?

It's already #14 on the most used Pokemon list and that's with half the people on shoddy unaware of it being unbanned. I think it's safe to assume that it will end up both very OU and change the list of other Pokemon used.

But even if the results point to it being broken, which they should given adequate time and testing, who's to say people like Colin and Obi won't argue that it should be allowed anyway- Obi thinks Kyogre could also work in OU so obviously some people want anything they can get unbanned with no regard to how shitty it makes OU. Like LGW said, no one has strictly defined overcentralization so the results can be interpreted any way you want. Anyways, my opinion of shoddy was already low before these arbitrary unbannings so I guess I'll be holding out for competitor. The main server's down half the time anyway.

 

[Cathy]

You say "half the people on shoddy" didn't know he was unbanned, but I'm curious: how many people did you survey to derive that figure? Or did you just make it up to give your argument some illusion of statistical basis?

Also, the server is rarely down, it's just hard to log on. Being persistent will work. There's not much I can about my current ISP, aside from getting a new one, which I plan to do sometime in the relatively near future.

I don't understand why you think there is some evil conspiracy here. My interest here is purely scientific. If the results suggest something, that's what we'll go with. I have never suggested ignoring evidence (although people debating the empirical method with the aid of psychological arguments often have). I don't even have an opinion on Wobbuffet, or any vested interest, so I'm baffled why you assume I am just out to make some sort of point.

I also don't understand why you insist on repeating that caricature of Obi's opinion. He doesn't suggest unbanning Kyogre (in isolation); he suggests unbanning a lot of pokemon to test which ones should actually be banned--and this would take place as basically a new metagame, not as an amendment to the current one. Note that Obi has not said he suspects Kyogre would work just fine in standard. His proposal just involves testing it as well as other pokemon. His proposal might have some flaws, but both here and in the other topic, rather than point out actual flaws, you just misrepresent his opinion in order to belittle him, and now it seems you're doing that to me too.

Perhaps you should take what I say (and what Obi says) at face value. There is no hidden evil plan here.

 

[kamikaen]

Okay I'ma try to make an attempt at some logical thinking here...just an attempt..

Okay, if Wobbuffet is so overcentralizing, and is so all-godly-ever so powerful, and leads to so many sweeps. Now stay with me here. WHAT IF YOU USE IT?! And it leads to those things? If Wobbuffet is causing the other team to rape yours, then maybe you should use it yourself in attempt to rape other teams.

For example, if Kyogre is allowed, would I bitch about it being allowed? Or would I double click Shoddy as fast as I can and make my starter a Kyogre followed by 8023902932 water types?

Shit I'd be looking at any chance to win. If you're bitching about disallowing something, chances are you're probably playing to not lose as opposed to winning. And if you are, disregard this cause nothing else can help you about it.

That's opportunism. It would probably be the best way to test a Pokemon if everyone was like that, but not everyone is, people react differently to change. Some people might go a step further, and find a solid counter to it (though by Smogon's definition, as far as I know, Wobbuffet, Dugtrio for the most part, and Wynaut can't be countered because nothing can switch in). And just because "everyone has equal opportunity to use Wobbly" doesn't make it a good metagame (but I'm sure that's not the point you were trying to defend), the object is to find a balance, and a happy medium between variety and centralization.

But anyone that things Wobbuffet should be banned again because it's too powerful, should probably start using it on Shoddy. You'll either find a different perspective, or prove to most people you face, that it's way to strong for OU. But I guess I'd get annoyed, as Shoddy seems to be currently concerned with perfecting the tiers, and everything has been upset. I hate change, the tier listing wasn't broken, and I don't think it should've been "fixed".

I'm totally unsure of how tiers are actually decided, but wouldn't "theorymon" play a role as well? If Arceus were somehow allowed in OU, yet no one used it because it was still considered cheap, wouldn't the tier makers still have the intelligence to see that it's way too much for OU, even though it wasn't seen in practice much?