MTI, Groudon teams suck because of Kyogre, not because Ho-Oh can't switch in. The most used pokemon in Ubers beats Groudon handily, and has a more favorable weather trait (I'll take Kingdra over Shiftry and Ho-oh anyday).
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
On The Justification Of Bans
- Thread starter Seven Deadly Sins
- Start date
I would like to make a comment about throwing usage statistics around like they are proclamations from God.
Usage statistics SHOULD NOT be any more than one factor among many in determining the brokenness of a Pokemon because usage statistics gathered from the ladder are inherently flawed.
One important part thing about statistics is that if they are to be used, you must use ALL of them. Omitting certain things, whether intentional or not, is bad. For example, Odi said that Deoxys' lead ranking was 6 > 6 > 5 for for July - September, but as someone else pointed out he left out the October statistic, where Deoxys was #1, barely beating Azelf.
Usage statistics are often used with these two implicit axioms: 1) The ladder is a purely competitive environment with most people playing purely to win, and 2) The weighting system will smooth out results so that those noncompetitive players do not affect the results as much as the competitive ones do.
Now, I will agree that if both of these assumptions were true, then usage statistics should carry large weight in discussions. And they are not axioms. They are statements that require proof, and proof is possible (though admittedly probably difficult) to get. If there is no proof that both of these statements are true, then usage statistics must be used with their limitations in mind.
The fist assumption may not be true because the laddering isn't just a way to increase your rank and win, it's also the easiest way to find a battle, even if you don't care that much about winning. And if you already don't care about your rank, there's really no difference between a ranked an unranked battle. So there may be an unknown number of players using the ladder just to get easy battles. How many battles are done like that I don't know, but it is something that could definitely skew statistics.
Now for the second assumption that the weighting system will eliminate those effects in the long run. That assumption is not inherently true as well. I remember reading somewhere that 56% of Amazon.com's income comes from books that are NOT in the top 10,000. Though the millions of books outside that top 10,000 my only sell a few copies a year, the sheer number of those books adds up to a significant effect on Amazon's bottom line.
The lesson from that is that a large number of low ranked items can have a greater effect that a few high ranked ones. If the number of uncompetitive battles is large enough, it can have a greater effect of the statistics than the competitive people, making the statistics inherently flawed for what we want to use them for. Some Pokemon may be ranked higher than they deserve, some lower. The end result would be utterly worthless.
I'm not saying the statistics are worthless because of these factors, I'm saying that they may be imperfect becasue of them, and should at least be considered.
Also, finally, the most important thing to remember about statistics. They show only what people are using, no more, no less. From that data we can draw inferences about a Pokemon's power, but it is an imperfect science at best, and hocus pocus at worst.
Usage statistics SHOULD NOT be any more than one factor among many in determining the brokenness of a Pokemon because usage statistics gathered from the ladder are inherently flawed.
One important part thing about statistics is that if they are to be used, you must use ALL of them. Omitting certain things, whether intentional or not, is bad. For example, Odi said that Deoxys' lead ranking was 6 > 6 > 5 for for July - September, but as someone else pointed out he left out the October statistic, where Deoxys was #1, barely beating Azelf.
Usage statistics are often used with these two implicit axioms: 1) The ladder is a purely competitive environment with most people playing purely to win, and 2) The weighting system will smooth out results so that those noncompetitive players do not affect the results as much as the competitive ones do.
Now, I will agree that if both of these assumptions were true, then usage statistics should carry large weight in discussions. And they are not axioms. They are statements that require proof, and proof is possible (though admittedly probably difficult) to get. If there is no proof that both of these statements are true, then usage statistics must be used with their limitations in mind.
The fist assumption may not be true because the laddering isn't just a way to increase your rank and win, it's also the easiest way to find a battle, even if you don't care that much about winning. And if you already don't care about your rank, there's really no difference between a ranked an unranked battle. So there may be an unknown number of players using the ladder just to get easy battles. How many battles are done like that I don't know, but it is something that could definitely skew statistics.
Now for the second assumption that the weighting system will eliminate those effects in the long run. That assumption is not inherently true as well. I remember reading somewhere that 56% of Amazon.com's income comes from books that are NOT in the top 10,000. Though the millions of books outside that top 10,000 my only sell a few copies a year, the sheer number of those books adds up to a significant effect on Amazon's bottom line.
The lesson from that is that a large number of low ranked items can have a greater effect that a few high ranked ones. If the number of uncompetitive battles is large enough, it can have a greater effect of the statistics than the competitive people, making the statistics inherently flawed for what we want to use them for. Some Pokemon may be ranked higher than they deserve, some lower. The end result would be utterly worthless.
I'm not saying the statistics are worthless because of these factors, I'm saying that they may be imperfect becasue of them, and should at least be considered.
Also, finally, the most important thing to remember about statistics. They show only what people are using, no more, no less. From that data we can draw inferences about a Pokemon's power, but it is an imperfect science at best, and hocus pocus at worst.
In my defense, to find the usage statistics, I just sorted the Stark Mountain threads by title and scrolled down to Smogon Shoddy... I had forgotten to take into account the stickied thread would still be at the top of the page.
However, my point still stands in that a month of being at the front a team is not proof that it's centralizing anything, in part because I feel people over-emphasize the importance of a "lead".
However, my point still stands in that a month of being at the front a team is not proof that it's centralizing anything, in part because I feel people over-emphasize the importance of a "lead".
oddly enough. the same arguement (and site) is actually now being used on smashboards to debate whether or not metaknight should be banned.
but to stay on topic, let me draw use an example from the anti-SR arguement to the listed requirements:
1.domination of a game- have you ever had to look at your party and wonder if you should use it because of a weakness to SR on your team? or have you ever spent time debating which SR users and rapidspinners to use? im sure eveyone here has. there are ever present moves (surf, ice beam, thunderbolt, etc) that you see on most teams that you dont really bother to consider when you make a team. its not because those moves are bad, it is because those moves you can deal with one at a time.
2.tactics- there are tons of possible tactics that can be used on a team, but the two most predominent appear to be aggro and stall. in both cases SR makes it easier, but the truth is that neither team trully NEEDS SR, its what could be described as a "win more move" or a "win easier move." the single fact that you can still win without it on your team, or even without a rapidspinner on your team, shows that the tactic can be managed.
3.best strategy- i honestly fail to see how a single move can be called a strategy. when paired up with other moves like (ie. roar) it becomes a strategy, but a a stand alone it is only a trap. but that leads me to wonder something that has annoyed me for a while, if this move leads to such a dominent strategy then why isn't it overly abused in uber where the ability to make winning easier would be most abused? there are only 3 in uber (dialga, deoxys-s, and groudon) that MIGHT use this move. you would assume that some of the best spike/SR users in the game (swampert) would have been forced into uber status if the move was so degenerative. in fact, the two arguable best pokemon in the game (arceus and mewtwo) can both still sweep after a switch into SR. this could just be due to their lack of weakness to the attack or their unbridled awesomeness, but it remains that they can and have done it.
............................
in this example SR loses in the first catagory, but passes the other two. this leaves the final decision of banning based on just HOW dominant the move is. if it gets to the point that you cannot make a team without a SRer, a rapidspinner or even both, then it probably will have to be banned. i have not seen it reach that level yet so at the moment i cannot say that it should be banned at this moment, but the metagame may develope into a place where action needs to be taken.
.............................
the reason that i debated the point on SR has to do with he popularity of the topic now, similiar arguements really should actually be focused now on a little thing called shaymin-s who happens to be up for a vote on banning soon.
but to stay on topic, let me draw use an example from the anti-SR arguement to the listed requirements:
1.domination of a game- have you ever had to look at your party and wonder if you should use it because of a weakness to SR on your team? or have you ever spent time debating which SR users and rapidspinners to use? im sure eveyone here has. there are ever present moves (surf, ice beam, thunderbolt, etc) that you see on most teams that you dont really bother to consider when you make a team. its not because those moves are bad, it is because those moves you can deal with one at a time.
2.tactics- there are tons of possible tactics that can be used on a team, but the two most predominent appear to be aggro and stall. in both cases SR makes it easier, but the truth is that neither team trully NEEDS SR, its what could be described as a "win more move" or a "win easier move." the single fact that you can still win without it on your team, or even without a rapidspinner on your team, shows that the tactic can be managed.
3.best strategy- i honestly fail to see how a single move can be called a strategy. when paired up with other moves like (ie. roar) it becomes a strategy, but a a stand alone it is only a trap. but that leads me to wonder something that has annoyed me for a while, if this move leads to such a dominent strategy then why isn't it overly abused in uber where the ability to make winning easier would be most abused? there are only 3 in uber (dialga, deoxys-s, and groudon) that MIGHT use this move. you would assume that some of the best spike/SR users in the game (swampert) would have been forced into uber status if the move was so degenerative. in fact, the two arguable best pokemon in the game (arceus and mewtwo) can both still sweep after a switch into SR. this could just be due to their lack of weakness to the attack or their unbridled awesomeness, but it remains that they can and have done it.
............................
in this example SR loses in the first catagory, but passes the other two. this leaves the final decision of banning based on just HOW dominant the move is. if it gets to the point that you cannot make a team without a SRer, a rapidspinner or even both, then it probably will have to be banned. i have not seen it reach that level yet so at the moment i cannot say that it should be banned at this moment, but the metagame may develope into a place where action needs to be taken.
.............................
the reason that i debated the point on SR has to do with he popularity of the topic now, similiar arguements really should actually be focused now on a little thing called shaymin-s who happens to be up for a vote on banning soon.
Adamant Bronzong with 136 attack EVs 2HKO'd DS Deoxys unless it threw a Reflect up first. Or with the advent of platinum, trick-anything Deoxys would limit DS Deoxys to only one setup, be it a screen, or Rocks. I just don't see how with those two things just off the top of my head severely limiting DS's usefulness it was "absolutely the best lead, every match was a coin flip for who could Taunt first"
Using Deoxys to counter Deoxys isn't a way to prove it's not broken. And Deoxys could always come back later in the Bronzong example. A taunted Bronzong is just asking for someone to set up on it.
Groudon though, is the best pokemon in Ubers that can remove Rain. And Kyorge has a hard time swapping in on Groudon - it hates Earthquake, Rock Polish and Thunderwave. Groudon Teams aren't necessarily stall either; they can be offensive based around the sun. There are some top Uber teams with Groudon and no Kyorge.
Deoxys can swap out of any pokemon that is faster than it with a Scarf and has Trick to a Pursuit user that will destroy the Tricker. Those with a Scarf that can Trick and outspeed Deoxys are Gengar, Azelf and Alakazam, who all die horribly by Pursuit. Lopunny (who is UU) is the only Tricker (Switcheroorer actually) who isn't crippled by Pursuit, but she doesn't take light damage swapping out either, and she has bad odds against them should she stay in.
Deoxys can come back in to set up DS later, when it will be even harder to stop it.
After readint the OP and the first couple of posts, I knew someone smart would post this-- because Obi is ultimately right here.
In fact, as much as I like discussion, this one is largely pointless.
Let's follow some logical steps to see why:
- Bans done to create a "better game"
- There is no objective way to define a "better game"
- If there is no objective definition, it has to be a subjective one, because it's about preference.
- People bring all sorts of reasons to their subjective decisions, because they have different preferences
In short, you can't really say there's any over-bearing justification. We can talk about centralization with a degree of subjectivity, but overall centralization is just one thing (among many things) that people take into account when they vision "a better game." What makes a game better or worse is ultimately subjective in other words.
That's why there's only 1 statistic of any real relevance to banning/unbanning: Vote counts
Useage stats can tell us something about centralization, and thinking about centralization can affect people's opinions-- but ultimately it's those opinions, not useage stats, that lead to preference choices about what makes a better/worse game.
Why do you think we're doing this suspect system (which by the way, I fully support)? Because this system, just like "what makes a better game," is based on willful preference.
It's good that we make a system to control it to a degree, but in the end we have to make banning/unbanning decisions based on some form of human preference.
human preference needs no justification, it just is what it is.
I was gonna post a thread similar to this, but I didn't have the time so I'm glad you did, SDS!
If we take this reasoning to Stealth Rock, it's easily seen that Stealth Rock is not overly dominating, neither is Skymin or any other thing that people want to be tested.
Essentially sums up the Stealth Rock and Skymin situation we have.
If we take this reasoning to Stealth Rock, it's easily seen that Stealth Rock is not overly dominating, neither is Skymin or any other thing that people want to be tested.
Sirlin said:
Essentially sums up the Stealth Rock and Skymin situation we have.
The thing is, the argument (for stealth rocks at least, not touching Skymin) is not necessarily that they are "too good", but rather that it limits the metagame. Eliminating Stealth Rocks would potentially allow more Bug, Ice, Fire, and Flying Pokemon to enter standard play. It would also allow for Focus Sash to become more of a legitimate strategy on non-leads (as things currently stand, it's basically a useless item unless its on a lead). In addition, eliminating Stealth Rocks eliminates the need for Rapid Spinners on teams, which in turn has the side effects of increasing the viability of Spikes/Toxic Spikes and decreasing the necessity of Ghost-types on teams to prevent spinning (which might, in turn, reduce the number of trickers present in the current meta). I mean, currently, half of many teams are devoted to the surroundings of Stealth Rocks - you've got your Stealth Rocks user, your Rapid Spinner, and your Spin Blocker (yes, many teams eschew one or more of these, and often a Spinner can also Set up rocks, but each of them are something to take into heavy consideration on any given team). This seems to me to echo slightly the Garchomp situation: an "optimal" team in the Garchomp days consisted of Garchomp and two Garchomp counters as half the team.
Wildfire, aside from the fact that neither your or Thorn seemed to have read my post, your post did not say a single thing that makes me want a non-sr metagame. Frankly I don't like the idea of a metagame where zapdos, salamence and moltres can run around switching in and out freely. I don't like to think that my opponents will stop giving me a free turn to move my plans forward while they set up SR. I don't like the idea of seeing focus sash on every freaking frail sweeper, and tyranitar/hippo on every team to deal with them (and yet still fail when talking about flygon, aero and luke).
I have never used a spinner or ghost by the way, as rapid spin is a loser strategy and I will gladly blast the crap out of my opponent while he's using it (if I even set up entry hazards).
Ever think about the fact that if you don't set up entry hazards and don't have rapid spin on your team at all, and your opponent has forced a ghost and rapid spin onto his team, then he's just narrowed his team options AND wasted one of his move slots?
I have never used a spinner or ghost by the way, as rapid spin is a loser strategy and I will gladly blast the crap out of my opponent while he's using it (if I even set up entry hazards).
Ever think about the fact that if you don't set up entry hazards and don't have rapid spin on your team at all, and your opponent has forced a ghost and rapid spin onto his team, then he's just narrowed his team options AND wasted one of his move slots?
You guys do realize you're going way off topic, since this thread is not about SR.
It's about the "justification of bans," which I mentioned was pointless (read post above for reasoning). Wondering if anyone can give me a reason why I am wrong. If not, this topic is largely pointless, and people should start to accept subjective opinions with more seriousness around this forum.
It's about the "justification of bans," which I mentioned was pointless (read post above for reasoning). Wondering if anyone can give me a reason why I am wrong. If not, this topic is largely pointless, and people should start to accept subjective opinions with more seriousness around this forum.
This isn't about saying that subjective opinions aren't warranted- they certainly are in a process like this. It's about where those subjective opinions are coming from. A lot of people are considering things like Skymin and SR broken for entirely fallacious reasons. I'm just trying to get people to consider why they think these things are broken, not to just make shallow and baseless decisions.
That is not made very clear in the OP. The OP looks like you are trying to set up some sort of objective requirements for justifying to ban/not ban something. I'm saying that's impossible (and furthermore ridiculous).
Instead you should have made a thread called, "What basis do people form their ban/unban opinions?" After all, you can't force reasoning onto them. The reasons for why wobbuffet, deoxys-s and garchomp are banned are completely different, and it's fair enough for people to bring a bunch of different opinions.
If a group of players for instance, feel that skymin should be banned because its hax decreases the degree of difference between wins of skilled and unskilled players, than their opinions should get reflected in the vote.
I disagree with them and think skymin should be OU, but again my opinions are based on something else.
What I'm saying is that you can work to convince someone, but if they change their opinions that's a decision each person makes themselves. In other words, there's no "justification," there's "let me try to convince you to not be an idiot, but you might not listen to me anyway unfortunately."
Instead you should have made a thread called, "What basis do people form their ban/unban opinions?" After all, you can't force reasoning onto them. The reasons for why wobbuffet, deoxys-s and garchomp are banned are completely different, and it's fair enough for people to bring a bunch of different opinions.
If a group of players for instance, feel that skymin should be banned because its hax decreases the degree of difference between wins of skilled and unskilled players, than their opinions should get reflected in the vote.
I disagree with them and think skymin should be OU, but again my opinions are based on something else.
What I'm saying is that you can work to convince someone, but if they change their opinions that's a decision each person makes themselves. In other words, there's no "justification," there's "let me try to convince you to not be an idiot, but you might not listen to me anyway unfortunately."
Actually, the point of the thread was to get people to think about just just why they think banning something is justified. Most people seem to think that stuff like luck makes something bannable. I'm just trying to get people to re-evaluate why they would ban something.
All I'm doing is trying to foster some discussion, and I can't understand why you seem to want to just shut this discussion down.
EDIT: Also, apparently I am succeeding somewhat, at least for this user:
Discussion is never bad. If you want to disagree, it's your choice, but it's out of line to try and prevent reasonable discussion, especially on an issue this large and wide-spread.
All I'm doing is trying to foster some discussion, and I can't understand why you seem to want to just shut this discussion down.
EDIT: Also, apparently I am succeeding somewhat, at least for this user:
zarator said:
Discussion is never bad. If you want to disagree, it's your choice, but it's out of line to try and prevent reasonable discussion, especially on an issue this large and wide-spread.
If that's what you're trying to do, I got no issue with it.
I'm just telling you that your motive is completely non-apparent in the OP, and unless you excercise some more open-minded thinking, you're just going to solidify people's current opinions even more.
It takes some tact to be pursuasive. You can win the battle but lose the war (you can make people look like idiots in discussion, but that doesn't mean you'll make them change how they vote).
. . . I should take my own medicine.
Frankly though, I'm thinking the majority of players are going to vote OU on skymin anyway.
I'm just telling you that your motive is completely non-apparent in the OP, and unless you excercise some more open-minded thinking, you're just going to solidify people's current opinions even more.
It takes some tact to be pursuasive. You can win the battle but lose the war (you can make people look like idiots in discussion, but that doesn't mean you'll make them change how they vote).
. . . I should take my own medicine.
Frankly though, I'm thinking the majority of players are going to vote OU on skymin anyway.
Sirlin's arguments?
What he says is true to fightning games, but never to a strategic one.
The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game.
This isn't reason to ban Garchomp. Sure, he may have been the best, but what about Gyarados? Luke? Dragonite? Gengar? Tyranitar? Metagross? And so many others.
I can assure you Garchomp wasn't ten times better nor popular than any of those.
In fact, Garchomp feared more Pokemon than Gyarados, Metagross and Dragonite ever did, how's this dominating?
Banning things is coming down to personal preference of a ideal metagame, and there's no way to change this since there's no perfect metagame for everyone.
What he says is true to fightning games, but never to a strategic one.
The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game.
This isn't reason to ban Garchomp. Sure, he may have been the best, but what about Gyarados? Luke? Dragonite? Gengar? Tyranitar? Metagross? And so many others.
I can assure you Garchomp wasn't ten times better nor popular than any of those.
In fact, Garchomp feared more Pokemon than Gyarados, Metagross and Dragonite ever did, how's this dominating?
Banning things is coming down to personal preference of a ideal metagame, and there's no way to change this since there's no perfect metagame for everyone.
No, but everyone packs the Special Wall known as Blissey, and thus everyone needs to pack a strong physical attack, if not use a mixed sweeper in lieu of a special sweeper just so you don't get walled by Blissey. If that's not overcentralization, I don't know what is.
Not saying Blissey should be banned at all (well if it should, it should because it's the most boring freaking Pokémon ever...), but I'm saying you could build an argument to ban just about any critter from OU. Still doesn't mean it should be banned (which is your original argument anyway).
Both Mia and the OP bring up some valid points. While I feel like the few things that have been banned from OU so far (three pokemon out of 500 is not a lot) have been perfectly legitimate, I also think that this notion of "ban everything that is good!" is a terrible idea. EVERY game is centralized, and since there are virutally infinite tactics that you can use in pokemon, obviously some will rise to the top.
The idea that "we need to ban stealth rock because its a really good move that a lot of people use" is fundamentally flawed and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of competitive games.
The idea that "we need to ban stealth rock because its a really good move that a lot of people use" is fundamentally flawed and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of competitive games.
You can say exactly the same thing but just replace SR by Deoxys-E and move by pokemon.
Most competitive games don't 'ban' no matter how powerful,glitched even Snake and Metaknight are nobody bans them in Brawl
If smogon bans Evasion moves because they are annoying, then why can't SR? I fail to see the difference.
Besides if i would explain this metagame to players from other competitive games they would think it's quite odd only 'new' pokemon become suspect and the top 3 nobody ever cares about because we are 'used' to them
Evasion isn't banned because it's "annoying", it's banned because it emphasizes luck over skill and decreases the quality of the metagame.
No, it's banned because it was banned in the previous gen. I'm not sure why it was banned in Advance though, quite possibly because it was banned in GSC but whatever.
From what I understand, in RBY double team-minimize were considered to be near-gamebreaking, and the ban has lasted from there. Don't quote me on it though . . .
Which is exactly why they are still banned. Anything that relies too much on RNG's is drawing from an overabundance of luck, thus reducing the effectiveness of strategic pokemon battling in general.