Pokemon specific bans in OU

[Aldaron]

So, we have Pokemon that might be on the fence between OU and Uber before any restrictions (suspects).

Why haven't we ever considered Pokemon-specific restrictions? Right now we determine if a suspect is too strong for ou, and then it if is too strong, it is voted into Uber. But since it is a suspect after all, there is no "strong confirmation" that it is uber, just a general feeling among players who actually play that it is too much for the standard metagame.

I'll use examples. I'm going to ignore Deoxys-S and Wobbuffet because both were given quick bans, and neither will be considered suspect ever again (for 4th gen anyway). Our suspects in 4th gen are Garchomp, Manaphy, Skymin, Latios, Latias, and Salamence.

Do people really think Garchomp would be broken if it wasn't allowed to use Swords Dance or Resist Berries? That Manaphy would be broken without access to Tail Glow or possibly Calm Mind? That Latios / Latias would be broken without Draco Meteor, Salamence without Dragon Dance (so you only worry about mix sets or choice sets) or without Outrage (dp salamence)? Skymin I'm ignoring as well as it was voted strongly uber in Stage 3 and pretty much no good battler had any doubts on that (it was made suspect only cause it was new).

Regarding the metagame, there are plenty of things that Garchomp and Latias provided that would be beneficial to it, but unfortunately due to specific offensive and general defensive capabilities, they were permanently banned and not allowed to positively affect the game. Garchomp and its scarf set was able to provide a dependable check to various dragon dancers (hello Salamence) and with its decent bulk and great defensive typing (resist electric / fire), switch in quite easily. Latias had it's awesome defensive capabilities (stopping Infernape).

So...why haven't we considered this beyond that really nonsensical "simple rules are preferable" statement.

Sure, simple rules are preferable. Doesn't mean we should allow the desire for simple rules to have higher priority than having a better metagame. I honestly think that having Garchomp / Latias in the metagame without certain offensive tools that made them broken before (SD Yache Chomp and Draco Meteor + Trick Specs Latias) would benefit the game greatly. Having more viable Pokemon just makes the game more interesting.

Again, to prevent that certain crowd that enjoys destroying debates by including extreme examples and using them as debate tools from sabotaging this topic, I'll emphasize certain points:

1.) We have a solid line set up for "where we stop," namely we only consider restrictions on Pokemon determined suspect before the restrictions. This means Mewtwo without Special Attacks or Kyogre without Choice Specs and Water Spout won't be considered (or Darkrai without Dark Void, Hypnosis, or Nasty Plot).

2.) Since we're moving towards a more council type Pokemon policy system anyway, we just have the council talk about what restrictions should be applied (to speed up the process)

3.) Let's face it, most of us (besides certain Ubers fanatics) enjoy a game that is balanced and diverse. We don't want Pokemon blasting away with ridiculous offensive potential and turning most games into 50-50 guesses (partly why Garchomp and Latias were banned). We also prefer not seeing the same things over and over again (I don't think I have to explain this one). Increasing the number of viable Pokemon in a game accomplishes the latter without worrying about the former, as we'll make sure to reduce their capacities (I'm ignoring defensive characteristics because we tend not to ban solely for them, note Blissey).

4.) Preferring simple rules might be important, but it should never have a higher priority than improving the metagame. Also, honestly, changing "Ban Garchomp and Latias and Salamence" to "Ban Swords Dance and Resist Berries on Garchomp, Draco Meteor on Latias, and Outrage on Salamence" is a negligible change. That is very literally making the ruleset negligibly more complicated. If we were going to try it for every Uber, I could maybe (but not really) understand the hesitation, but we're ONLY going to consider suspects, and only some of them at that (not Deoxys-S, wobbuffet, or skymin).

So...why aren't we considering this?

 

[Raverist]

Hmm, interesting topic here.

Garchomp wasn't made Uber solely because of its bulk and overpoweredness of a single set, as there were other smaller factors (Sand Veil, immunity to Thunder Wave and stuff) as well as use of resist berries like Yache or Haban. Removing these tools, such as berries, from Garchomp would mean we have ourselves a brutal Swords Dancing dragon who can be stopped with a good Ice Shard from Mamoswine or something. The fact that the new additions to the 4th gen also means there's greater diversity.

In a nutshell, good discussion on pokemon-specific bans.

 

[WeLuvYouMagcargo]

I feel as though banning moves on a pokemon shouldn't be done unless the move itself is broken (ie hidden power in GSC in some people's opinion) I mean, we could hypothetically ban any amount of moves on an uber pokemon until they are viable in OU, but we decide instead to ban pokemon because frankly pokemon should have their movesets left as nintendo gave them. What is the difference between shoddy taking outrage off of mence and shoddy giving flareon flare blitz so that it can be competetivaly viable? (not saying it would be, just giving an example)

 

[Raverist]

The thing is, Salamence gets Outrage as a MT move. Flareon doesn't learn Flare Blitz full stop (though hopefully BW will change that) and so can't get it.

BY banning OUtrage on Mence, folk will likely resort to running Dragon Claw instead of it, which is used at times for the bulkier sets, and will result in potentially more diversity.

 

[Afti]

The difference is that, ingame, you can have a judge look for and enforce specific move bans; the game is unaltered, more rules are added to the metagame. We control the metagame.

 

[Efemera]

Personally, I find such bans distasteful. If we have to break Garchomp's left arm and blindfold it so that for it to be fair, I'd rather we not play with it at all.

More practically, banning specific moves would be an extremely long process. How do we decide which moves make which Pokemon broken? We would need a testing process for each move.

 

[zarator]

I think that one of the reason there is skepticism towards this mentality is the difficulty to decide what breaks a Pokémon. For example, take Garchomp. Do we ban Yache Berry? Swords Dance? Outrage? Earthquake? A combination of two or more of them? What about Haban Berry? You can see how the situation is not as easy as it may look at first. It's not all about "keeping rules simple".

EDIT: Basically what the poster above me said, in a certain way

 

[McNUTTY]

just in my opinion i think that some of these pokemon would still be really strong with those bans, Like it is very possible that Salamence could just run Dragon Claw (which in my opinion is better) off that Attack Stat it still destoys things effectively at +1 not too much survives. Latias's Draco Meteor was Over Powered and i could agree with that move being banned. Manaphy was really not broken at all in my opinion, it is just like the other pixies base 100 stats all round and Celebi and Jirachi are OU. I do think that it should be possible to do this to pokemon but it needs to be considered what really makes the pokemon Broken its moves or its Stats?

 

[Delta 2777]

What is the difference between shoddy taking outrage off of mence and shoddy giving flareon flare blitz so that it can be competetivaly viable? (not saying it would be, just giving an example)

The difference is you aren't altering the in-game mechanics by banning Outrage or Draco Meteor etc on a Pokemon, you're simply saying "yes, that Pokemon can learn it, but you aren't allowed to use it on the standard ladder". On the other hand, Flareon doesn't learn Flare Blitz at all, so giving Flareon that move would make it unobtainable in-game. Game Freak makes the Pokemon and moves, but Smogon makes the tiers and the clauses.

Anyway, I -kind of- support this. If we can ban one aspect of a Pokemon which is the reason for its brokenness, we should do it (assuming it benefits the metagame). However, first we have to identify whether or not ONE move/item/ability is the reason why it is so broken (Tinted Lens Yanmega?). However, this is not always the case; what would make Garchomp OU material? Banning it from using Earthquake? Banning it from holding Yache Berry? Banning it from using Swords Dance?

 

[PK Gaming]

I feel as though banning moves on a pokemon shouldn't be done unless the move itself is broken (ie hidden power in GSC in some people's opinion) I mean, we could hypothetically ban any amount of moves on an uber pokemon until they are viable in OU, but we decide instead to ban pokemon because frankly pokemon should have their movesets left as nintendo gave them. What is the difference between shoddy taking outrage off of mence and shoddy giving flareon flare blitz so that it can be competetivaly viable? (not saying it would be, just giving an example)

Well according to Borat, they weren't broken in the slightest. I'm going to be honest here, I'd totally love if we did that.

I mean think about it, poor Mence wouldn't be so fucking broken if he wasn't given Outrage. (see early DP mence) to the people saying that it would be distasteful to do so, I'd much rather use a crippled Garchomp than to not use it at all.

There are problems with this idea though. The Smogon system is pretty much set in stone and for you to do this you would have to retest every pokemon from the ground up. To much time/effort. It could be somewhat easy to implement on shoddy where the game wouldn't let you load a team with a pokemon using said move. (just like it does with IV's for legends, EV's, illegal movesets etc)

(Personally, if Mew wasn't given Baton Pass it would NOT be broken in OU)

 

[cantab]

From a competitive point of view, a Pokemon comprises:
* Maximum possible stats. By using levels, EVs, IVs, and Natures, the stats can occupy certain wide ranges up to the maximum.
* One or two abilities
* Typing
* Movepool
Also, though not intrinsic to a Pokemon itself, the held item is important.

Of these, the only ones we can't change are typing, and for those Pokemon with only one ability that. So, if you're looking to restrict powerful Pokemon to ensure they are balanced in OU, why focus on movepool? Why not limit the level, or the EV investment? How about banning Garchomp from holding items altogether, that might balance it?

In my opinion the best opposition to any such change is it makes the Pokemon something else.

Also, there's only so much 'space' in standard. Sure, you might be able to let in suitably-restricted Garchomp, Latis, and Manaphy. But what loses out? Even with some nerfing, let Garchomp in and Flygon usage is gonna drop. The actual metagame would not necessarily become more diverse.

Also, the whole thing smacks of clutching at straws, of looking for loopholes to keep certain Pokemon in standard. If you want to use Garchomp and Manaphy and Latios, go and play Ubers.

EDIT: Non-Baton Pass Mew would be a very interesting case. No one set is overpowered, but it still has insane versatility. I don't think there's any universal counter or even check, so it could become a case of "guess the set" - get it right and you win, get it wrong and you lose.

 

[Jonathan]

1.) We have a solid line set up for "where we stop," namely we only consider restrictions on Pokemon determined suspect before the restrictions. This means Mewtwo without Special Attacks or Kyogre without Choice Specs and Water Spout won't be considered (or Darkrai without Dark Void, Hypnosis, or Nasty Plot).

No, we don't have a sold line. We have an arbitrary line that you have chosen. Give me a legitimate reason why we should abide by your arbitrary line. You claim a metagame with Garchomp and Latios would benefit the game by making more Pokemon viable. Putting aside the fact that certain currently OU Pokemon would subsequently become less viable, why shouldn't other Ubers be given an equal opportunity? Because they were more powerful before? What if removing Roost and Recover from Ho-oh makes it less Uber than Garchomp without Swords Dance? There is simply no fair way to draw such a line without testing every Pokemon, and even then it would be a nightmare for the reasons zarator and Efemera have outlined.

3.) Let's face it, most of us (besides certain Ubers fanatics) enjoy a game that is balanced and diverse. We don't want Pokemon blasting away with ridiculous offensive potential and turning most games into 50-50 guesses (partly why Garchomp and Latias were banned). We also prefer not seeing the same things over and over again (I don't think I have to explain this one). Increasing the number of viable Pokemon in a game accomplishes the latter without worrying about the former, as we'll make sure to reduce their capacities (I'm ignoring defensive characteristics because we tend not to ban solely for them, note Blissey).

I agree with your first point, but I'm actually going to ask you to explain that latter point to me. Lets say all these changes are implemented tomorrow, then after a month or so the metagame will settle down and we'll all be seeing whatever the new top 10 OU Pokemon are, over and over. Unless you're suggesting we indefinitely adjust the boundaries between OU and Uber (something that's been really annoying this generation to me at least) then I don't get your point.

4.) Preferring simple rules might be important, but it should never have a higher priority than improving the metagame. Also, honestly, changing "Ban Garchomp and Latias and Salamence" to "Ban Swords Dance and Resist Berries on Garchomp, Draco Meteor on Latias, and Outrage on Salamence" is a negligible change. That is very literally making the ruleset negligibly more complicated. If we were going to try it for every Uber, I could maybe (but not really) understand the hesitation, but we're ONLY going to consider suspects, and only some of them at that (not Deoxys-S, wobbuffet, or skymin).

I completely agree with you first statement. But seriously who is to say any of these actions would improve the metagame? Your point about greater diversity is only valid in the very short run. Bringing those Pokemon down isn't going to change anything in the long run; in all likeliness adding five new Pokemon to OU will decrease the viability of several others, and then you're back to square one. Why don't we just skip the whole thing and just keep things the way they are now.

Sorry if my responses sound a little harsh, it's more my attitude towards the subject in general, nothing personal :)

 

[Luminary]

The issue isn't so much whether or not Darkrai would be broken as much as it is a philosophical one.

I agree with this train of thought. Although simplicity is certainly not "nonsensical", we should prioritize having a good metagame above simplicity, to a reasonable degree.

I've always wondered at the motivation behind minor tier changes. Why would we test Latias (for example) out in OU? Is it believed that every Pokemon deserve their "day in court"? Was everyone feeling sorry for Latias because they thought she was unjustly banished to ubers? Did we do that for the Latias fans, or what? Are tier changes made just to shake up the metagame?

I understand the justification of a tier change: a Pokemon fits certain criteria. Latias was deemed possibly weak enough for OU play. But is that justification the only motivation? Are we simply aiming for a point at which we can look proudly upon our creation, and confirm that all of our ducks are in a row? A place for everything, and everything in its place? Should we use a "test everything" mentality to achieve that glorious end?

Was it truly determined, after careful debate and consideration, that Latias would have a positive effect on the OU metagame? Without trying to step on any toes, I would say that such consideration does not seem to have been the case. Pokemon seem to be moved around simply because they fit a certain criteria. This accomplishes nothing.

Of course, such debate and consideration is useless. Apparently, we don't even agree on what a "positive effect" is! Are we to make the game "more fun"? More "competitive"? And how are we supposed to define those things, and implement those definitions?

At the end of the day, what motivation do we have to test out Dakrai without the ability to put things to sleep? Or Salamence without the ability to Dance? (lol ClumsyMence) What motivation do we have start the arduous testing of these justifiable changes? And what motivation do we have for any tier change?

In order to get anywhere, we first need to agree that diversity is a suitable goal. This is common sense. If you don't like it, play ubers. Secondly, we need to recognize that we have the ability to control the metagame. We can create whatever we want, even without going beyond what Game Freak has given us. We need to use this ability under the established goal of diversity. Lastly, we cannot assume by default that a tier change will accomplish our goal. If banning Hippowdon will bring Sandslash, Donphan, and Claydol into OU (obviously a ridiculous example), then I'm all for it. But that needs to be well established beforehand. If banning Dragon Dance on Salamence will increase diversity more than banning Salamence itself, then I'm all for it. But that needs to be well established beforehand.

If you can't recognize that such bans create a slippery slope, I suppose there's not a whole lot I can do to convince you. I agree that tier lists should be made using sensible human thought. We are capable of dealing with things on a case by case basis. We have capabilities beyond that of computers. And I am capable of using my subjective mind to say that what you have suggested may go too far beyond that.

Nonetheless, I can see this having a positive effect on our game. The recently established Smogon Council seems too perfectly suited for these types of bans. A small group of intelligent, experienced players can overcome the utterly overwhelming amount of options this opens up. What this will take is good judgement, and good theorymon. (I wonder if those users will be invited to the council for this reason.) If it doesn't spin out of control, we'll end up with something better than we started with.

My biggest interest in your post, Aldaron, is your implication that bringing ubers down to OU increases diversity. This has alerted me to the two schools of thought on this issue. Sometimes, an appropriate Pokemon can drop down, and literally increase the number of viable Pokemon by one. Sometimes, an inappropriate Pokemon can be booted up, and minutely increase the viability of all Pokemon, by reducing centralization. These two things can co-exist. However, there are still situations within this that must be avoided. If an uber would steal the niches of multiple existing Pokemon, it should not be allowed into OU, regardless of whether it breaks the metagame or not.

So: I agree that we should not be afraid to exercise our subjectivity, and our power of the metagame. But I feel that the question of "uber" should not have "power" as its only criteria. We need to continue to exercise our subjectivity, and consider whether or not a change will increase universal viability. If the change is not positive, we should save ourselves the stress of a tier change.

 

[Galactic Boss Cyrus]

I once brought up the same argument and people said "Oh, but you can't ban items and moves!" Complete bullshit. Look at Soul Dew. And there's nothing that isn't possible. Just don't allow something like Dragon Dance or Swords Dance on a Garchomp. Without those, he's actually possible to stop, and if anything, makes more Pokemon like Weavile & Mamoswine playable. It would also stop things like Flinchax Jirachi (no Iron Head), or any other Pokemon that's only a problem because of a few moves or items.

I feel this is a great idea, and for example I'll use YuGiOh. Whenever it's possible to contain a problem without banning a card (Pokemon), instead cards are limited to 1 ccopy (banning moves or an item) and the least extreme solution is taken. If it's possible to stop something without shrinking the number of playable cards, that action is taken. If it's possible to stop a negative and overbearing shadow over the metagame while still keeping it one more playable Pokemon, that action should be taken.

 

[PK Gaming]

EDIT: Non-Baton Pass Mew would be a very interesting case. No one set is overpowered, but it still has insane versatility. I don't think there's any universal counter or even check, so it could become a case of "guess the set" - get it right and you win, get it wrong and you lose.

I disagree. A lot of OU pokemon can run unpredictable sets (or gimmicks) and cost you a pokemon. (C
No, Mew will only runsey or whatever)


No, Mew will only run a few movesets of worth. A NP Set, a Swords Dance set, scarfed/specs, or a support set. This is not unlike a pokemon like say Infernape (excluding the support set)

Mew is literally only broken because passing 2+ anything with 2+ speed is beyond broken.

I once brought up the same argument and people said "Oh, but you can't ban items and moves!" Complete bullshit. Look at Soul Dew. And there's nothing that isn't possible. Just don't allow something like Dragon Dance or Swords Dance on a Garchomp. Without those, he's actually possible to stop, and if anything, makes more Pokemon like Weavile & Mamoswine playable. It would also stop things like Flinchax Jirachi (no Iron Head), or any other Pokemon that's only a problem because of a few moves or items.

I feel this is a great idea, and for example I'll use YuGiOh. Whenever it's possible to contain a problem without banning a card (Pokemon), instead cards are limited to 1 ccopy (banning moves or an item) and the least extreme solution is taken. If it's possible to stop something without shrinking the number of playable cards, that action is taken. If it's possible to stop a negative and overbearing shadow over the metagame while still keeping it one more playable Pokemon, that action should be taken.

I mostly agree with this. I haven't faced a single Latias on wifi with Soul Dew.
But Flinchax Jirachi isn't anywhere near broken. It's got solid counters and it's been discussed to death.

Hide

anyone hate how Cyber Dragon is limited to ONE!?!

 

[Quaily]

There was a thread about this a few months back debating whether dragon types or dragon moves were too strong. I think the consensus was the actual dragon types were.

 

[jumpluff]

Personally, I find such bans distasteful. If we have to break Garchomp's left arm and blindfold it so that for it to be fair, I'd rather we not play with it at all.

More practically, banning specific moves would be an extremely long process. How do we decide which moves make which Pokemon broken? We would need a testing process for each move.

I disagree entirely. What is distasteful about diversifying the metagame? The idea is that the bans would turn Garchomp into a good and viable Pokémon that didn't break the metagame.

Your second paragraph is half-wrong, half-right. The identification of broken characteristics in a Pokémon is a tricky thing in some cases, but since, as Aldaron said, we've moved towards a council deciding bans instead of the 4th generation suspect tests and paragraphs, I don't see why it would take long. The idea is that the council would sit down and, after intelligent and substantiated argument, deem certain aspects of a Pokémon broken.

I don't believe the problem here is whether it's feasible or not, or even whether a given example Pokémon is broken (i.e. Aldaron's point about Darkrai not being relevant); it's a philosophical issue. Personally I find this sound with our current philosophy, since we aim to ban as little as possible. Better to ban Yache Garchomp than Garchomp itself, since it has other viable sets, if it betters the metagame, right? Banning an item on a Pokémon has less impact on the existing metagame than banning a Pokémon itself. It's much less extreme -- bans are a tool for Smogon to improve the competitive metagame, obviously, and we should apply them in moderation.

As for simplified rulesets, due to the fact the council would be intelligent, I can assume there wouldn't be too many bans. Not so much a D&D rulebook as a few Soul Dew clauses. If these ban approaches were few and far between (i.e. we used the common sense that should exist in the people of the council), simplicity doesn't become an issue, while the potential to improve the game is still very much an issue. Pokémon is a complex game as is, so someone new to the game would simply have to learn about an extra rule. I can't see this deterring people simply because they can't memorise several subrules.

There's a balance between feasibility/simplicity and viability of multiple Pokémon that we can reach.

The other issue I see here is the question of whether this would actually improve the metagame. I refer to DougJustDoug's Policy Review topic, Characteristics of a Metagame. We need to decide what we actually want from a metagame. With our current policy of not banning unless necessary, I would say that having as many different Pokémon as possible matters. If versatility and many Pokémon viable is a high priority, then this is a good approach.

 

[Aldaron]

No, we don't have a sold line. We have an arbitrary line that you have chosen. Give me a legitimate reason why we should abide by your arbitrary line. You claim a metagame with Garchomp and Latios would benefit the game by making more Pokemon viable. Putting aside the fact that certain currently OU Pokemon would subsequently become less viable, why shouldn't other Ubers be given an equal opportunity? Because they were more powerful before? What if removing Roost and Recover from Ho-oh makes it less Uber than Garchomp without Swords Dance? There is simply no fair way to draw such a line without testing every Pokemon, and even then it would be a nightmare for the reasons zarator and Efemera have outlined.

This is quite silly. Who says an arbitrary line cannot be solid? Solid as I am using is twofold:

a.) using a part of our own process, the suspect designation, to help streamline the addition

b.) using that part of the process PRECISELY so we do not have to test everything.

Actually, your argument is most relevant to how we choose a suspect. You should argue this point in THAT topic, not this one. This is simply an extension of how we choose a suspect; now we'll be choosing what makes that suspect broken. Hopefully the debate threads that will pop up will greatly influence our decisions.

I agree with your first point, but I'm actually going to ask you to explain that latter point to me. Lets say all these changes are implemented tomorrow, then after a month or so the metagame will settle down and we'll all be seeing whatever the new top 10 OU Pokemon are, over and over. Unless you're suggesting we indefinitely adjust the boundaries between OU and Uber (something that's been really annoying this generation to me at least) then I don't get your point.



I completely agree with you first statement. But seriously who is to say any of these actions would improve the metagame? Your point about greater diversity is only valid in the very short run. Bringing those Pokemon down isn't going to change anything in the long run; in all likeliness adding five new Pokemon to OU will decrease the viability of several others, and then you're back to square one. Why don't we just skip the whole thing and just keep things the way they are now.

This is the part of your response I'm most interested in, because I agree with it in a sense. I'll state this clearly: I DO NOT know if it will improve the metagame. I don't know if ANYTHING will improve the metagame. When I make policy recommendations, I don't KNOW anything. What I have is an idea of how certain Pokemon MIGHT add to the metagame, and I make a decision from that loose, conceptual idea.

Here is my idealized scenario: We have a suspectless metagame in 5th gen. We (hopefully) make the process really time efficient so in no more than let's say 6 months we've designated suspects, tested them, and kept / banned accordingly. The next step would be to ARBITRARILY have certain individuals decide what further restrictions on the suspect Pokemon would allow them to stay in the game. The general idea is that there is a high correlation between more viable Pokemon and an enjoyable game, so we're going to try and tend towards that.

Let me ask you this, if a Pokemon is not broken, would we ban it? The answer is no, we won't. The only reason we are hesitating to go down this path is for 3 concerns:

1.) Pedantic arguments about the "Solid line" drawn. The line is simply using "suspect" to streamline with the current process. If you want to complain about that arbitrary aspect, you should take it to complains about suspect, not here.

2.) Pedantic philosophical concerns regarding "complexity of rules." This is the silliest concern of all. Who. Cares...Should be enough of an answer, but the real answer is simplicity of the ruleset should never have a higher priority than attempting to improve the metagame. Yes, it's merely an attempt, a shot not necessarily in the dark but with a very low predictive probability. Still, we should try it if it could.

3.) Impractical time concerns. I've noticed people keep mentioning we'll have to test this, and we'll have to test that, and it'll take forever.

No. We're actually only testing within the pool of suspects (again, complain in that topic if you don't like the way we pick suspects) and we're only choosing to test what the individuals on the council in the 5th gen will choose to test. We don't need to test every move on these suspects simply because the alternative is straight up banning the Pokemon. Yes, we might not test every possibility, but testing what we want is infinitesimally better than testing nothing.

If you'll notice, we're tending towards a council type suspect process in 5th gen, simply for practical reasons. We don't want to spend 2+ years again determining the metagame. This council will be making all decisions on experience based theorymon. We will play, and make decisions on that theorymon. Theorymon is obviously not 100% free of an arbitrary element, regardless of experience time.

We will choose suspects using this theorymon, and we make decisions using what we SUPPOSE (no way to know for sure) is best for the game.

This is simply an extension of that. We're going to use experience based theorymon to try and see what is best for the metagame, and we're going to run tests to see if it works.

Again, large paragraphs of probably pointless debate aside, do you honestly feel that adding Garchomp to this metagame without Swords Dance and without Resist Berries would have any potential negative effect at all? Garchomp's Choice Scarf set was an amazing Pokemon in a metagame-theory sense because it gave people a solid check against most offensive threats (Dragon Dance Salamence / Dragonite, Agility Empoleon / Metagross, now Choice Scarf Jirachi). The problem with Garchomp was that the Yache SD set was too dangerous, and our fear of this prevented a very beneficial factor to the metagame (Choice Scarf Garchomp) from helping out.

Sorry if my responses sound a little harsh, it's more my attitude towards the subject in general, nothing personal :)

No problem, I don't hate you any less. Just kidding. Maybe.

 

[kd24]

Mew is literally only broken because passing 2+ anything with 2+ speed is beyond broken.

I wouldn't be so certain about that, Mew doesn't need to pass anything when it has a basically unlimited movepool with any +2 stat up move. Flamethrower/Ice Beam/Tbolt/Nasty Plot? Swords Dance/Earthquake/Stone Edge/Recover?

As to not derail the thread, I'm not really sure yet. I can see the merit you present but I'm not really sure if you are truly adding diversity to a metagame by making Pokemon "less Uber". Most Ubers can still function well enough even without that killer move/item (ScarfChomp for your Garchomp example) that I'm worried the freedom in diversity will be gone, as when we lost Garchomp, and then Latias, (and now, on Suspect, without Salamence). The banning of these Pokemon have brought out more diversity in team building, because no longer do top threats have to be accounted for.

I think the only way to decide is to test though (with our council), because we really don't know if it would improve the metagame or not. So I guess I'm not against the idea of testing, just not particularly sold on the actual concept. But making baseless assumptions without statistics or testing is not any good so ...

I would agree with testing this.

Edit: I just realized that basically I'm saying "adding Pokemon will result in a few Pokemon being used just for them" while you are saying "the added Pokemon will be able to check many of the top threats, allowing more diversity elsewhere".

 

[Efemera]

How exactly does that add to diversity, though? All it really accomplishes is that it appeases those Garchomp/Latias/whatever fans that want to use their favorite Pokemon in OU no matter what. Say we don't let Garchomp use Swords Dance. Well, now you've just eliminated a large number of possible sets it could run. What is it now but a Flygon with better stats but no Levitate? Eliminating options on Pokemon reduces their uniqueness and makes them boring. It also pushes other Pokemon down, no matter how you work it. No, I don't agree that allowing handicapped ubers into OU would make the metagame more diverse. I think it would have the opposite effect.

 

[PK Gaming]

I wouldn't be so certain about that, Mew doesn't need to pass anything when it has a basically unlimited movepool with any +2 stat up move. Flamethrower/Ice Beam/Tbolt/Nasty Plot? Swords Dance/Earthquake/Stone Edge/Recover?

This is exactly applicable to Infernape. It can be Swords Dance Ape, Nasty Ape, CB Ape, CS Ape etc.

And why would I ever even consider using that over something like Infernape with raw power? You don't even get any sort of STAB on the movepool and your hard walled by Blissey. (The ideal set would be NP/Psychic/Aura Sphere/Flamethrower or some other filler)

It was even discussed in the order of operations thread?
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42182&page=7

 

[kd24]

PKGaming: Mew can also Taunt, Recover, 101 Sub, etc. It could work its way around almost any OU Pokemon depending on what set. I think you are simply cutting it short (Unlike Infernape, by the way, it has 100/100/100 defenses which means it is staying around).

How exactly does that add to diversity, though? All it really accomplishes is that it appeases those Garchomp/Latias/whatever fans that want to use their favorite Pokemon in OU no matter what. Say we don't let Garchomp use Swords Dance. Well, now you've just eliminated a large number of possible sets it could run. What is it now but a Flygon with better stats but no Levitate? Eliminating options on Pokemon reduces their uniqueness and makes them boring. It also pushes other Pokemon down, no matter how you work it. No, I don't agree that allowing handicapped ubers into OU would make the metagame more diverse. I think it would have the opposite effect.

DDMence is a major threat but to check it you can carry Scarf Garchomp. Which the Mence threat neutralized, the rest of your team can be chosen more freely, without worry of Salamence. I don't know how it makes a Pokemon boring, if you don't like it - don't use it.

 

[Relictivity]

I like the idea of putting restrictions on Pokemon in this manner, but ultimately, I do not think it will work.

The reason why it would be so... 'iffy' to do, is because it is very, very difficult to select how to nerf a Pokemon. For example, with Garchomp, you could nerf it's berry. And now it can be countered. Or you could nerf it's Swords Dance. And it could be countered. Or you could nerf it from having Fire Blast. And it could be countered. But the thing is, by nerfing it in such ways, we are providing 'biases' for certain other pokemon. For example, if we nerfed Fire Blast, we would see a rise in Skarmories. If we nerfed Swords Dance, we'd see a rise in Cressalias. If we nerfed berries, we'd see a rise in Mamoswine. Ultimately, we can't 'nerf' a single Pokemon in such a way and be equal to all of the Pokemon in the meta-game.

That isn't to say a nerf can't work - nerfs can work to help diversify 'strategy' in the metagame. For example, you look down at UU currently, where we are having problems with Rain Dance. They are considering 'nerf'ing things, by banning the item Damp Rock. The idea is to possibly create a more strategically balanced meta-game, where Sunny Day, as well as regular speed sweeping, is more viable. And this is where I think nerfing WOULD be ok, does it make the meta-game more strategically viable. By strategies, I mean Baton Pass, Trick Room, Rain Dance, Sunny Day, Sandstorm Stall, Hail Stall... things like that. Does it make it so that you have more choice on strategically viable teams for the meta-game?

Now, I would really, desire if possible, a more strategetically diverse OU metagame, and to a sense, I've been doing that, as though I can't actually go play Shoddy right now, I have been helping my friend Sassafrass develop anti-metagame teams (Octillery-Ninjask Pass, Kabut-Omy Rain Dance, Let's Go Boom Sunny Day, Jirachi SS Spike Stall, Metagross Trick-Block-Boom Lead) to run on Shoddy, hoping it will make people realize that there are other viable strategies out there other than regular sweep. I'm not a good predictor - but he is - and maybe he can make a change by forcing people to create a more diverse meta-game. I've heard him tell me about some people calling for Ninjask to go to uber, simply out of frustration with his teams :naughty:. Now I don't know if his awesome predicting will ultimately make a change, or if something like this will be necessary to make a more interesting and diverse meta-game, but I do hope change is coming.

 

[Jonathan]

Response.

Okay, I think two things are getting a little bit muddled up (in my mind at least) and need to be separated.

1. Implementing Pokemon specific bans in this generation

I'm coming around to your point regarding an arbitrary line being acceptable. Upon reflection several things in our metagame are based on arbitrary choices (the usage boundary between OU and UU for instance). At the end of the day an arbitrary line is the most practical way to go about such a process, even if it isn't necessarily fair to all Pokemon.

Something I'd like to mention which I didn't in my first post is that I don't have a problem regarding the "complexity" of banning individual moves. I agree that trying to improve the metagame should be our highest priority.

Time is still an issue though in my opinion. Even with the Council, tiering Salamence is going to take at least six weeks. I don't know how quickly thereafter the Council (I'm assuming/hoping it would be the some one?) will be able to appropriately nerf our 5/6 suspects. Getting the support from the necessary people for banning specific moves, deciding whether to make these changes independently or all at once for our suspects (or doing both as we did in the suspect tests), not to mention the changes to UU this would bring (which is finally beginning to settle down also), and the fact that we're going to have to rewrite many of the OU analyses...this just seems like too big a change to be fully implemented before the 5th gen. comes out.

I really can't answer your question on whether adding Garchomp with those limitations would have a negative impact on the metagame. This comes back to my second point, that after all this, we don't know if any of these changes will make the game more or less fun. What I do know though is that we're almost at the point where we have a stable metagame, and I don't want to go through another round of tier shifts. It would also be like throwing everything we've been doing with the suspect testing over the last two years out the window. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys in the Policy Review have had a list of suspects for the past two years, it's just the testing which has taken so long. So in conclusion I think it doesn't make sense to implement these bans this generation


2. Implementing Pokemon specific bans next generation

I don't have much to say here really; basically I support implementing your idea for the next generation. Yes we'll still have the issue that we don't know whether our changes will make the game better or worse, but we'll have the time to explore such questions. Maybe we can start by brainstorming what kind of metagame we want to have. I'm sure there's already a thread somewhere on that topic.

 

[Efemera]

PKGaming: Mew can also Taunt, Recover, 101 Sub, etc. It could work its way around almost any OU Pokemon depending on what set. I think you are simply cutting it short (Unlike Infernape, by the way, it has 100/100/100 defenses which means it is staying around).



DDMence is a major threat but to check it you can carry Scarf Garchomp. Which the Mence threat neutralized, the rest of your team can be chosen more freely, without worry of Salamence. I don't know how it makes a Pokemon boring, if you don't like it - don't use it.

Hm, sounds exactly like Scarf Flygon's current role, only with 102 base speed and a higher attack stat.