-
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.
OU Suspect Testing Proposals
- Thread starter X5Dragon
- Start date
No consideration should be given to lower tiers when making bans in higher ones (sadly, but it needs to be that way). A perfect example of this would be Gothitelle. RU voted to keep it in the tier (by a very convincing 7-0 vote, might I add). However, UU banned it because it was deemed broken there, as they should have. The tiering system will simply not work if higher tiers have to take lower tiers into consideration when making their bans.
Yeah, G-Von said the same, but at that point I feel like you're compromising on his crazy physical prowess and now he's just a pretty good mixed attacker, of which we have plenty.
On the contrary -- mixed Kyurem-B is the best wallbreaker in the game right now. Stall is forced to run weird stuff because of it, and it can break literally every wall.
I'm going out on a limb and just going to start talking about how fucked the system is. It's based on two groups of people; the "cool kids" and then regular users. So the "cool kids" think they're so right about everything, they know the most, they play the most. They think that Pokemon A is a little annoying or maybe it's just a bit good. Since this pokemon was introduced to the metagame earlier, it's easy to see how they might think it is broken.
Then the "cool kids" complain about Pokemon A being too good for the metagame. Giving (poor) argument after (poor) argument. Eventually it's going to be suspected. The "cool kids" don't even give it a chance -- they battle so they get reqs and then ban it.
This is how it goes. Suspecting is generally a sentence to banishment to Ubers.
Now the only real solution is to completely change how we do suspect. Community and group votes, while fun, isn't a good way to go about it. Back in BW1, before the hell of BW2, we had the council, who basically controlled the tier.
I support a method like this. A number of people whom we trust to make the correct calls for us. Yes, we lose the suspect test, but we probably get a better metagame over all. I don't think I'd find anyone who disliked the end result of BW1 (except weather haters) and that was mostly due to the council's good work. Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it is still leagues ahead of the current one.
Then the "cool kids" complain about Pokemon A being too good for the metagame. Giving (poor) argument after (poor) argument. Eventually it's going to be suspected. The "cool kids" don't even give it a chance -- they battle so they get reqs and then ban it.
This is how it goes. Suspecting is generally a sentence to banishment to Ubers.
Now the only real solution is to completely change how we do suspect. Community and group votes, while fun, isn't a good way to go about it. Back in BW1, before the hell of BW2, we had the council, who basically controlled the tier.
I support a method like this. A number of people whom we trust to make the correct calls for us. Yes, we lose the suspect test, but we probably get a better metagame over all. I don't think I'd find anyone who disliked the end result of BW1 (except weather haters) and that was mostly due to the council's good work. Is it a perfect system? Probably not, but it is still leagues ahead of the current one.
God forbid something is actually broken and deserves to be banned!
Your bullshit "cool kids" theory is extremely insulting and I'd really like to know which part of your ass you pulled it from. I don't think you're in much position to criticize shit considering the people voting to ban these things are the top players with the most experience in the entire game right now and you've hardly played in just about forever.
edit: I realize that I'm coming off as extremely abrasive. However when someone who hasn't even played in forever comes in and starts attacking people who have been an active part of the current metagame and actually know what the hell they're doing then I get mad. Apologies but the point still stands.
Your bullshit "cool kids" theory is extremely insulting and I'd really like to know which part of your ass you pulled it from. I don't think you're in much position to criticize shit considering the people voting to ban these things are the top players with the most experience in the entire game right now and you've hardly played in just about forever.
edit: I realize that I'm coming off as extremely abrasive. However when someone who hasn't even played in forever comes in and starts attacking people who have been an active part of the current metagame and actually know what the hell they're doing then I get mad. Apologies but the point still stands.
Last edited:
I propose a new system (this might have been done already). This is a three tiered suspect test banning method.
-First we do the suspect test like we always do.. We have the ladder and the people who get reqs gets to vote on the suspect.
-We take an even number of people who clearly do not want the suspect banned and who wants the suspect banned. This can be a fairly large or small number... Like 5-5 15-15 or 20-20. Make sure these are known users or user that have alot of experience. They can be nominated and voted for by the players that got reqs ,the OU council ,or other upstanding users. The users then have a debate on irc or on the forum and try to persuade the other side to vote their way. This discussion will be heavily moderated by the OU council and will be available to all users before the public suspect test. The selected people who participated in the debate threads/chat will get to vote on what they think should happen.
-Once the suspect reqs have been given and the debates completed the people who got reqs vote on a decision like normal. While this is happening the debate teams then vote on a decision. If any one person switches over then the debate team's vote goes towards that decision.
- if the players that got reqs decision and the debate team's decision's are the same then that decision stands. If They are different then the OU council will have the final decision on what happens.
Example suspect test:
-Pokemon J gets nominated as a suspect by the OU council.
-Ou council puts a suspect thread up and the requirements to be eligible to vote. User discussion starts.
-The ladder is finished and everyone who qualifies confirms their alts.
-The players who are eligible (or the OU council) then vote on X amount of players to both sides of the argument.
-OU council opens a heavily moderated debate thread or chat room.
- Debates end and voting thread opens.
- The players who got in by the ladder reqs vote.
- The 2 debate teams come together and vote.
if the ladder reqs vote and debate team votes are the same that decision stands. If they are different then the OU council gets a final vote.
This keeps all the regular users involved and opens up organized debate to make the process not so subjective. Also it gives the OU council still the final decision and the majority of the power.
-First we do the suspect test like we always do.. We have the ladder and the people who get reqs gets to vote on the suspect.
-We take an even number of people who clearly do not want the suspect banned and who wants the suspect banned. This can be a fairly large or small number... Like 5-5 15-15 or 20-20. Make sure these are known users or user that have alot of experience. They can be nominated and voted for by the players that got reqs ,the OU council ,or other upstanding users. The users then have a debate on irc or on the forum and try to persuade the other side to vote their way. This discussion will be heavily moderated by the OU council and will be available to all users before the public suspect test. The selected people who participated in the debate threads/chat will get to vote on what they think should happen.
-Once the suspect reqs have been given and the debates completed the people who got reqs vote on a decision like normal. While this is happening the debate teams then vote on a decision. If any one person switches over then the debate team's vote goes towards that decision.
- if the players that got reqs decision and the debate team's decision's are the same then that decision stands. If They are different then the OU council will have the final decision on what happens.
Example suspect test:
-Pokemon J gets nominated as a suspect by the OU council.
-Ou council puts a suspect thread up and the requirements to be eligible to vote. User discussion starts.
-The ladder is finished and everyone who qualifies confirms their alts.
-The players who are eligible (or the OU council) then vote on X amount of players to both sides of the argument.
-OU council opens a heavily moderated debate thread or chat room.
- Debates end and voting thread opens.
- The players who got in by the ladder reqs vote.
- The 2 debate teams come together and vote.
if the ladder reqs vote and debate team votes are the same that decision stands. If they are different then the OU council gets a final vote.
This keeps all the regular users involved and opens up organized debate to make the process not so subjective. Also it gives the OU council still the final decision and the majority of the power.
this is literally one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. believe it or not, the council is actually able to think by themselves on whether something deserves a test or not despite complaints and if you want an example see rain vs me/bkc/yee/100s others complaining about rain. rain has yet to receive, and from what ive been told, likely never to receive a gen 5 test. just because you disagreed with bans doesn't mean the mons weren't broken or that the system is broken, that kind of rationale and logic is literally horrendous. another example was keldeo who was voted ou the first time around. while it will be suspected again most likely, i think it has a real chance of being ou again because people are finding it easier to handle with lando gone. your post is honestly ignorant of what's happened recently, whether it be through the suspect process or the attitude of our userbase
And erm.. How is this different from people who don't want to see Amoonguss and know it's less viable of a defensive grass type with lando around, so vote to keep it unbanned? People who want landorus to stay unbanned because they're sick of getting haxed and it's a more hostile environment for jirachi?
We know not everyone will be voting for the right reasons, but there's nothing we can do about that.. Luckily, it should just about even out in the end.
Even if the people complained about it for the wrong reasons, I doubt the council would've put it up for suspect if there wasn't a legitimate concern of it being broken.
I don't personally agree with the Lando-I ban, so I voted for it to stay unbanned.. Now if we could all just do that, rather than complaining about the system..
Hi there everyone! I am just going to throw the idea of in Gen 6 testing Giratina-O. Giratina-O is unique among formes as it is forced to hold the Griseous Orb, which gives it a 1.2x multiplier to its STABs. Giratina-O also is rather slow at base 90, and not terrifyingly strong, like the other dragons in OU, especially Kyurem B. The Speed draw and the inability to hold an other items is a huge point against Gira-O, but it does have several good qualities. For one, its bulk. If 130/100/90 ticks people off, than 150/100/100 must be aggravating. Gira-O can also run several potent wallbreaking sets. SubCM would be a bulkier Latias, but without Recover and much slower. Its stats scream Mixed Attacker, and its access to key moves like Draco Meteor, Shadow Sneak, Aura Sphere, and Outrage. However, I feel it would be better if I listed it as a pros and cons idea.
Why might not be broken
-Middling Speed
-Forced to Hold Griseous Orb
-Comparative lack of power to most OU pokes
-Lack of reliable recovery
-Common weaknesses,(its no Kyurem B in this department, but most of these weaknesses are common, spare Ghost)
Why it might be broken
-Huge Bulk
-Great mixed attacking sets, making it similar to Kyurem B in this regard
-Great ability in Levitate can make it a great pivot
(Kinda running a blank here, could use a few more reasons ;) )
Now, as a community, what do you think of this idea. Does it seem logical, or am I gonna look like a idiot for posting this XD?
Why might not be broken
-Middling Speed
-Forced to Hold Griseous Orb
-Comparative lack of power to most OU pokes
-Lack of reliable recovery
-Common weaknesses,(its no Kyurem B in this department, but most of these weaknesses are common, spare Ghost)
Why it might be broken
-Huge Bulk
-Great mixed attacking sets, making it similar to Kyurem B in this regard
-Great ability in Levitate can make it a great pivot
(Kinda running a blank here, could use a few more reasons ;) )
Now, as a community, what do you think of this idea. Does it seem logical, or am I gonna look like a idiot for posting this XD?
Okay It seems that a lot of random points are being made in this thread that are deviating from the topic.
I'd like to voice my opinions on the current system as well as a path for the future.
I think something a lot of people overlook in suspect testing is that each time it creates an entirely new meta. If we rush tests every couple of weeks, what is the point of testing altogether? Personally I think we should have at least some kind of buffer time between tests so that the metagame can settle out. Things like people rediscovering old sets, reading groundbreaking RMTs, and developing new cores don't happen overnight, and something that seems fine at one point can become broken later on (example: Choice Scarf Genesect was semi-manageable, but once people started bluffing scarf and using rock polish, it became apparent how broken it really was).
Obviously this means that we don't have time to do 101 suspect tests, and I think that's a major weakness of the system, but one that we're going to have to live with.
For the Future:
This has been mentioned before, but I think banning the 670+ Pokemon is fine as long as we:
A) Let the metagame settle for some time (determined by the council) before we start testing. It will be a new generation with a ton of new toys (mega evolutions anyone), and there will be a lot to consider.
B) Look at unbanning before we start banning, within reason of course. With careful observation of the new generation, we can hopefully determine which former ubers receive new checks and counters, and which ones are still too powerful for OU.
Some notes:
I think if something is truly broken it should stand out. If your first reaction is: "they're really suspecting that?" then we're going something wrong.
Overcentralisation is a real problem and probably a good argument for a ban, but maybe not in terms of strategy. If we have 50 viable OU pokemon, who cares if stall isn't viable because of a couple of them? There's only so much we can do to adjust to our own preferred balance of strategies, and I would prefer to let each tier work it out on their own, given the available set of pokemon.
Also it seems like every time we do a test it goes through in the way it would change the meta. Maybe this is just a job well done on the part of the OU council for picking the right suspects, but I find that hard to believe.
I might edit some more thoughts in later, but this is a good first draft.
I'd like to voice my opinions on the current system as well as a path for the future.
I think something a lot of people overlook in suspect testing is that each time it creates an entirely new meta. If we rush tests every couple of weeks, what is the point of testing altogether? Personally I think we should have at least some kind of buffer time between tests so that the metagame can settle out. Things like people rediscovering old sets, reading groundbreaking RMTs, and developing new cores don't happen overnight, and something that seems fine at one point can become broken later on (example: Choice Scarf Genesect was semi-manageable, but once people started bluffing scarf and using rock polish, it became apparent how broken it really was).
Obviously this means that we don't have time to do 101 suspect tests, and I think that's a major weakness of the system, but one that we're going to have to live with.
For the Future:
This has been mentioned before, but I think banning the 670+ Pokemon is fine as long as we:
A) Let the metagame settle for some time (determined by the council) before we start testing. It will be a new generation with a ton of new toys (mega evolutions anyone), and there will be a lot to consider.
B) Look at unbanning before we start banning, within reason of course. With careful observation of the new generation, we can hopefully determine which former ubers receive new checks and counters, and which ones are still too powerful for OU.
Some notes:
I think if something is truly broken it should stand out. If your first reaction is: "they're really suspecting that?" then we're going something wrong.
Overcentralisation is a real problem and probably a good argument for a ban, but maybe not in terms of strategy. If we have 50 viable OU pokemon, who cares if stall isn't viable because of a couple of them? There's only so much we can do to adjust to our own preferred balance of strategies, and I would prefer to let each tier work it out on their own, given the available set of pokemon.
Also it seems like every time we do a test it goes through in the way it would change the meta. Maybe this is just a job well done on the part of the OU council for picking the right suspects, but I find that hard to believe.
I might edit some more thoughts in later, but this is a good first draft.
Alright I want to bring something has been mentioned by Jukain and others in the Pony topic, how many ladder matches is enough to prove skill and experience on both OU ladders?
It seems to me that first 65 +/- dev then lowering it further to 60 hasn't done anyone any favors since all it does is force very good players to just forfeit tens of matches while other players have to slave there way to the very end. The Council wanted to impose a W/L ration to prevent forfiets (someone managed to get 2000 glicks with more L than W) or 2:1 ration but I think that doesn't solve the problem completely.
I personally think 30 matches (and it's equivalent in deviation) should be enough with 2000 Glicko and 2:1 W/L ratio on both ladders, anyone else who wants to play more to satisfy these requirements is free to do so.
Edit: Let's focus on quality not quantity
It seems to me that first 65 +/- dev then lowering it further to 60 hasn't done anyone any favors since all it does is force very good players to just forfeit tens of matches while other players have to slave there way to the very end. The Council wanted to impose a W/L ration to prevent forfiets (someone managed to get 2000 glicks with more L than W) or 2:1 ration but I think that doesn't solve the problem completely.
I personally think 30 matches (and it's equivalent in deviation) should be enough with 2000 Glicko and 2:1 W/L ratio on both ladders, anyone else who wants to play more to satisfy these requirements is free to do so.
Edit: Let's focus on quality not quantity
Last edited:
Honestly the whole suspect method is flawed. In summary
Suspect discussion comes up
Pro ban lists arguments about said suspect
Anti ban lists counter arguments about said suspect
Pro ban disagrees with counterarguments and brings in teammates/prediction
Anti ban lists counter arguments involving teammates + gimmicks + more prediction (psychic lando-i, gunk shot gene, reflect latias, just to name a few of the stupid shit that's been posted)
Overall this whole process gets us nowhere since pro ban and anti ban will never agree. Does this show us how a suspect is good and possibly broken? Definitely, however no one will ever consider the other point of view properly outside of incredibly double standard arguments like prediction, bullshitting every move/set possible no matter how gimmicky, teammates (tytar + keldeo > single keldeo check/counter as opposed to keldeo check/counter > keldeo). Then we move onto actually obtaining reqs which is a good idea in theory, but many have reported that they see little if any of the actual suspect on the standard ladder. How does that come off as a good way of banning things anyhow? We become unable to judge if a mon is broken or not in a metagame where it actually thrives and instead use the standard ladder to give us a "good" estimation of how the ladder settles without said suspect. It's also worth noting that days or even weeks after said ban happens the metagame still hasn't settled yet and good sets are still being discovered and shaping the ladder up yet further so our actual suspect ladder doesn't give us a good indicator of how the ladder becomes without the suspect. This is completely disregarding how something that might've been broken in the past might be considered bearable at the moment which is an entirely different argument (see kyube which is the opposite in this case since during the kyube suspect the mixed set was pretty much unknown at the time and thus kyube managed to make it into ou, now that said mixed set has been discovered people are saying it's broken and deserves a resuspect again)
Overall I can't see an effective way to fix this since no matter what the ou council does people will bitch and complain at everything. If we leave banning entirely to the council then people will complain about the council being biased and say it was a skewed ban, and if we let the general population choose a suspect we'll just be receiving stupid shit like sr is broken, voltturn broken, etc etc etc.
also partingshot4banplz
tl;dr version we're fucked.
edit: Also if by cool kids theory you mean users posting smogon tour champion level teams and the likes and then having people steal said rmt and abusing it like hell on the ladder to bring things up in usage then yes I agree with said cool or rather good player theory. Not really sure if this applies to ou admittedly but I can say that this happens/ed in ubers with some stuff like custap forry (from poppy's rmt) among some other examples.
Suspect discussion comes up
Pro ban lists arguments about said suspect
Anti ban lists counter arguments about said suspect
Pro ban disagrees with counterarguments and brings in teammates/prediction
Anti ban lists counter arguments involving teammates + gimmicks + more prediction (psychic lando-i, gunk shot gene, reflect latias, just to name a few of the stupid shit that's been posted)
Overall this whole process gets us nowhere since pro ban and anti ban will never agree. Does this show us how a suspect is good and possibly broken? Definitely, however no one will ever consider the other point of view properly outside of incredibly double standard arguments like prediction, bullshitting every move/set possible no matter how gimmicky, teammates (tytar + keldeo > single keldeo check/counter as opposed to keldeo check/counter > keldeo). Then we move onto actually obtaining reqs which is a good idea in theory, but many have reported that they see little if any of the actual suspect on the standard ladder. How does that come off as a good way of banning things anyhow? We become unable to judge if a mon is broken or not in a metagame where it actually thrives and instead use the standard ladder to give us a "good" estimation of how the ladder settles without said suspect. It's also worth noting that days or even weeks after said ban happens the metagame still hasn't settled yet and good sets are still being discovered and shaping the ladder up yet further so our actual suspect ladder doesn't give us a good indicator of how the ladder becomes without the suspect. This is completely disregarding how something that might've been broken in the past might be considered bearable at the moment which is an entirely different argument (see kyube which is the opposite in this case since during the kyube suspect the mixed set was pretty much unknown at the time and thus kyube managed to make it into ou, now that said mixed set has been discovered people are saying it's broken and deserves a resuspect again)
Overall I can't see an effective way to fix this since no matter what the ou council does people will bitch and complain at everything. If we leave banning entirely to the council then people will complain about the council being biased and say it was a skewed ban, and if we let the general population choose a suspect we'll just be receiving stupid shit like sr is broken, voltturn broken, etc etc etc.
also partingshot4banplz
tl;dr version we're fucked.
edit: Also if by cool kids theory you mean users posting smogon tour champion level teams and the likes and then having people steal said rmt and abusing it like hell on the ladder to bring things up in usage then yes I agree with said cool or rather good player theory. Not really sure if this applies to ou admittedly but I can say that this happens/ed in ubers with some stuff like custap forry (from poppy's rmt) among some other examples.
Last edited:
Am I the only on that thinks the Suspect process is decent? I mean, there are some kinks in the system that need to be tweaked, but the overall concept is solid.
The reason why I think this is simple. Players ladder on the suspect and current ladders; in order to get requirements to vote, you have to be at least decent. There will, of course, be statistical anomalies, but this actually doesn't matter so much, provided that the voting pool is also a decent size, which I believe it currently is. The size of the voting pool will generally counteract any random people that squeeze through; I'm not an expert on statistics, but (I think?) once your sample size begins to grow past a certain point, then you can say that any particular vote is accurate within + or - a couple percentage points. Like I said, not a stats expert in the least, but I still feel that the majority of voters that get reqs have a brain, and that any clueless voters will cancel each other out.
Of course, there are those scenarios where one voter could tip something over 50% - but I think this is easily solved by increasing the ban majority to 60%; you could also do that thing where if something receives a simple majority in one test, then it's auto-suspected for the next, which could ensure that we're not missing any pokes that should be banned by increasing the ban majority.
One last thing. I just wanted to point out that I, personally, haven't felt that there have been any really 'bad' or 'wrong' decisions made during the suspect process. I mean, some people might claim we're too ban-happy, but if that's your claim, then what exactly would you not have banned? Genesect? Deoxys-S? Excadrill? Really, the most borderline suspects we've had this entire gen are probably Landorus-I and Keldeo - for me, I think everything else that was both banned and not banned was the right decision. That in itself is testament to the fact that the process works. Maybe some things weren't tested as thoroughly as I would've liked - i.e. weather - but nonetheless, for the actual things that were tested, I feel we got positive results.
(PS: While some ideas for a new suspect process sound nice - see curtains' post just above - keep in mind that they have to be practical. The people who help run Smogon (I assume) have day jobs and stuff they have to do on a regular basis in their daily lives. That goes for the rest of the people who get reqs, and vote on suspects too; this is important, because the process must not only be accurate, but also efficient. I noted Curtains' post specifically because it's a great example of a system that would be highly accurate, but would also be hard to organise, as well as being generally slow (keeping in mind that one thing people didn't like about BW2 was the apparent 'slowness' of the suspect process)).
The reason why I think this is simple. Players ladder on the suspect and current ladders; in order to get requirements to vote, you have to be at least decent. There will, of course, be statistical anomalies, but this actually doesn't matter so much, provided that the voting pool is also a decent size, which I believe it currently is. The size of the voting pool will generally counteract any random people that squeeze through; I'm not an expert on statistics, but (I think?) once your sample size begins to grow past a certain point, then you can say that any particular vote is accurate within + or - a couple percentage points. Like I said, not a stats expert in the least, but I still feel that the majority of voters that get reqs have a brain, and that any clueless voters will cancel each other out.
Of course, there are those scenarios where one voter could tip something over 50% - but I think this is easily solved by increasing the ban majority to 60%; you could also do that thing where if something receives a simple majority in one test, then it's auto-suspected for the next, which could ensure that we're not missing any pokes that should be banned by increasing the ban majority.
One last thing. I just wanted to point out that I, personally, haven't felt that there have been any really 'bad' or 'wrong' decisions made during the suspect process. I mean, some people might claim we're too ban-happy, but if that's your claim, then what exactly would you not have banned? Genesect? Deoxys-S? Excadrill? Really, the most borderline suspects we've had this entire gen are probably Landorus-I and Keldeo - for me, I think everything else that was both banned and not banned was the right decision. That in itself is testament to the fact that the process works. Maybe some things weren't tested as thoroughly as I would've liked - i.e. weather - but nonetheless, for the actual things that were tested, I feel we got positive results.
(PS: While some ideas for a new suspect process sound nice - see curtains' post just above - keep in mind that they have to be practical. The people who help run Smogon (I assume) have day jobs and stuff they have to do on a regular basis in their daily lives. That goes for the rest of the people who get reqs, and vote on suspects too; this is important, because the process must not only be accurate, but also efficient. I noted Curtains' post specifically because it's a great example of a system that would be highly accurate, but would also be hard to organise, as well as being generally slow (keeping in mind that one thing people didn't like about BW2 was the apparent 'slowness' of the suspect process)).
Doesn't this promote players to keep recreating alts hoping to luck out with their battles, though? Actually nvm, if someone's willing to go through all that trouble I say they deserve that vote.. They probably care more about the decision than I do.
The main thing I'd like to see is a system where players who might not be able to get reqs but have posted insightful posts in the suspect thread might be able to vote.. Because it's more important to me that they actually care about the metagame and have a valid reasoning behind why they (don't) want something banned, than whether they're decent ladderers or actually have the spare time to ladder.
Last edited:
There's always an option of creating a multi-tier system council, where the highest privelages (making suspect topics and votes, decision on who to suspect, etc.) go to the OU council, then a OU senate were players with tiering badges get to vote automatically as long as they present some proof of their activity and participate in relevant topics/write a paragraph (also eligable to be nominated to replace retired council members) and then finally regular OU players who have to earn their right to vote either because they are new, haven't voted in previous tests before or don't have enough proof of experience.
That way the the players the make up the senate d always be encouraged to have an impact on the tests rather then some dropping out due to obligations and not having the time to ladder.
That way the the players the make up the senate d always be encouraged to have an impact on the tests rather then some dropping out due to obligations and not having the time to ladder.
do us all a favor and just think before you post (and lurk more too). we still know almost nothing about gen 6 atm or what our starting banlist/process of determining it will even look like. if you just took 20 seconds to think "hey, wait, why am i offering gen 6 suspect testing thoughts on a random specific mon? gen 6 isnt out yet!" i wouldn't be admonishing this post.