Gonna keep paragraphs short for readability's sake.
Firstly, I apologise for the vitriol—I'm not normally the type of person to throw out insults, but I was fairly tired when I posted this and it’s something that has been simmering away in my head around three years now, with gen 7 OU just kinda fuelling the flame. That stupid, presumptive comment from Finch just made me boil over. I released this when I got to the end of the post, hence the polite tone of the last paragraph+title, but I didn't want to go through and re-write stuff bc I was on my phone and it was, like, 11 PM.
That said, I do stand by the statement that generation 7 OU was grossly mismanaged and that the decision to dodge addressing Wobbuffet separately goes directly against statements I have seen council members make regarding their tiering philosophies in the past, but they’re points that stopped applying past the OP and which are both things that can be improved over going forward so I won’t keep pushing them. Attacking the council perhaps wasn't the right way to go about it, but at the same time it's not like they haven't made themselves a very easy target as of late.
Onto the main point though, it's genuinely astounding just how pretty much everyone in the thread except Chaos has completely missed the point of my OP. To all the people arguing that I take issue with the act of Wobbuffet being banned, I implore you to re-read my post and point out the point where I explicitly say "Wobbuffet is not broken". The only thing that could even be loosely interpreted as that would be the line about how the Pursuit justification in the thread is flat out bad, and even then it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and see that this is just an example of me asking for people to evaluate scope.
I may technically have something which could bias my view of Wobbuffet in a vacuum, which Ophion so readily went out of his way to point out
, but that also wasn't the point of my post at all, so I don't see how it's at all relevant to the discussion. And yes, I was aware of the fact that's there when making my post, which is the whole reason why I made no attempt to ever comment on whether I felt it was, as a matter of opinion, broken.
Title: "Please reconsider
the approach to Shadow Tag in generation 8" (other trapping abilities implied)
I don't take issue with the act of banning Wobbuffet—if people are able to demonstrate
meaningfully (keyword) that Wobbuffet
specifically (other keyword) is a problem, I will take a Pokemon-level ban lying down. Despite what I'm sure lots of people believe, I'm neither a moron nor the type of person to throw a hissy fit if the
only reason for it is because I can't use something I like using, despite the way people seemed to have (misguidedly) interpreted the OP.
What I take issue with with is the policy and process which led to Wobbuffet being
effectively banned, not only now but also back in ORAS, SM, and BW. It was banned as a matter of policy as opposed to as a matter of necessity, and it is a policy that not only has a habit of conflating incomparable factors, but one that is also built on top of largely self-defeating and/or otherwise faulty logic imo.
In the current generation of Pokemon, Wobbuffet:
- Continues to lack the ability to directly damage its target, excluding the obvious case of it busting the Dynamax which would be better spent on fuelling an offensive teammate (unlike every other trapper other than Wynaut)
- Continues to be inconsistent vs different archetypes depending on its choice of variant (unlike Scarf Gothitelle/Gothorita and arguably Dugtrio)
- Lacks any way of permanently crippling its target when outright removal is either not possible or otherwise not optimal (unlike Gothitelle/Gothorita (Trick, Thunder Wave etc.))
- Has lost perhaps the best form of second-Pokemon support that it could possibly ask for (Pursuit)
Above I have outlined a number of reasons why I feel that Wobbuffet can't be judged under the same scope as either itself in past generations or other trappers in the current generation--namely the Gothitelle line--and from that line of reasoning I can only conclude that it should be be treated with the same "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy as the entire rest of the pokedex, as opposed to the "guilty until proved innocent" philosophy that this community only ever seems to adopt when someone brings up the term "Shadow Tag". I'll also add that noone has actually provided a valid point against this sentiment itt yet--and no, "trapping bad therefore wobb bad" is not a valid counterpoint here because it misses the entire point.
I am a firm believer that, in cases where an ability's direct effect does not persist past the Pokemon being active (i.e. the difference between field-impacting abilities like Drizzle and individual abilities Swift Swim, Speed Boost or, indeed, Shadow Tag/Arena Trap), users should be assessed on an individual basis. More specifically, if an ability can't persist past a Pokemon's vaccum of activity, the logical conclusion is that the problem
must be the combination of options available+ability. As such, short of introducing complex ban*, the only element which is reasonable to address is the user. Flow charts/logic trees that follow similar processes to the one outlined above are, imo, the only way that parallel policy can be designed in a way which is logically consistent across all components in the game due to the fact that they address the issue of definition far better than other approaches, and I feel that cutting out "aimless" subjective steps in policy making (i.e. subjectivity revolving around defining aspects) is the only way to do this.
* Not gonna argue about whether complex bans are appropriate because that is its own kettle of fish that I don't want to open, but I'm in favor of them provided that we have set, carefully defined processes that we use to identify what they are/when they are used.
If it turns out that Wobbuffet does, in fact, pose a problem (after a decision is made about Dynamax, obviously), then it can be just be suspect tested at a later date. I don't understand why this is such a seemingly controversial statement to make, considering that there isn't a single downside to it. And best of all, it is an approach which improves the banlist and mends faulty precedent by increasing the emphasis that is placed on Pokemon-level bans and which doesn't leave a trail of bad+short-sighted precedent in its wake. Or, if you are really worried about its potential impact on SPL/whatever other major is next in line on the Smogon circuit, you could approach it as a re-suspect rather than an exit test, although I don't believe this is ideal because it doesn't provide ample time for meaningful exploration.
Hopefully I did a better job of explaining my view point in this post. I mostly just wanted to start discussions about re-evaluating the approach to policy going forward (which worked, by the way!), and it just so happened that Shadow Tag posed as a very convenient way of doing so+had demonstrated what I feel is exactly the wrong way to address policy just a day or two prior. I didn't want to wait to do it because if I had I would've been left in a position where, by the time I'd gotten around to thinking about it, too much time had passed. This perceived need to rush, alongside a combination of other factors, led to me initially misassessing how I needed to approach this--hence the kinda shitty OP. Though at the same time I do kinda wonder whether anyone would've actually bothered to read it if I'd not been so loud lol.