Well, this discussion board seems to have heated up again so I suppose I will weigh in again. I guess I'll respond to everybody, because I have something to say about every post.
Lusch more or less hit the heart of this issue. We all have recognized the same problem for the most part, but we all have different ways of solving it. I don't have much to add to this point, I just wanted to say I agree. This is basically the only problem and unfortunately this means our debate will be a little more philosophical than I think we all hoped.
The latter half of the post kind of lost me though. The words "objectively" and "fun" don't really belong in the same sentence first and foremost. I like the Wrap metagame and have no interest in changing it. I'm not saying I'm right or more skilled or whatever, I'm just saying you can't tell me that Wrap can't be a fun mechanic, because, well, I don't mind it and more often than not, enjoy it. I understand your argument that eliminating or handicapping Wrap will make the UU environment more inviting, but I ultimately just don't really care about that. Firstly, I'd rather make the tier fun for me and people like me (people who actually play this tier and like it) than try to appeal to some hypothetical group of people that would maybe be more likely to consider playing RBY UU. I'd rather play to the interests of myself and the people in this thread than to those of players that may not even exist. Secondly, we are talking about an Old Gen Lower Tier; we aren't exactly a new player magnet. You can mold RBY UU into whatever you think most players would like, but at the end of the day, it's not going to be that popular. Therefore, popularity isn't exactly on my agenda for this tier. I'm content with its size. It would be cool if it grew I suppose, but we have a pretty good community already and everything seems fine.
And for what it is worth, I have little interest in a hit-and-run meta. I think faster-paced metagames are more boring. This is why I find RBY, GSC, and ADV infinitely more entertaining to play and watch than DPP or any of the more modern generations. I might be in the minority with this opinion, but again, that's my opinion and it should not be made out as if nobody likes slow metagames.
For Hipmonlee, all I can say is I completely agree. I basically already said what was declared in my previous post:
UU emphasizes a very particular set of skills and has an identity distinct from every other game I have played. I think this is one of it's key strengths as a meta, not a weakness.
To summarize, I certainly do empathize with your reservations with this tier. It does feel really strange. Ultimately though, I don't view this as a problem to be fixed but as a uniqueness to be celebrated.
So yeah, obviously I agree. I think UU is pretty great as is and I wouldn't want to see many changes. I know this isn't the best argument, but if you don't like the state of RBY UU, maybe play a different tier? I don't think I'm in the minority when I say I'd like to preserve as much as current UU's identity as possible. As such, I think we should keep it largely similar and leave other tiers and other generations to satisfy the needs of other players.
On to EB0LA. Wrap is definitely the most defining element of UU. I, and others who like the tier as is, often "
lie" and say it's not a huge part, but if I am being totally honest with myself, I must say Wrap is a very big part of this tier. I would agree that Wrap is probably the most sensible think to attack. However, I refer back to my and Hipmonlee's point which is that I don't think a Wrap-less metagame is one most of us want to play. This ban idea hasn't been very popular among the posters in this thread not because it doesn't make sense, but simply because it isn't desired. People are free to chime in if I'm putting words into their mouths, but based on what I have read, nobody really wants Wrap gone. I'm not saying we shouldn't have this conversation, but I am saying I don't think we should ban Wrap, as doing so would be a markedly unpopular decision.
Next is meloyy. Despite the two of us having very little contact, we seem to be more or less on the same page. This post is no exception, as I share most, if not all, of the sentiments expressed in the post. If we want to make a metagame that most resembles what we want to play, a ban on Agility + Wrap (or + Partial-Trapping) is the way to go. I will concede that that is a pretty nebulously defined "we," but regardless, it's definitely not an insignificant part of the RBY UU Community™ that likes the tier largely as is.
Finally, Plague von Karma. I mainly want to address this point:
The main issue I see with the complex ban is that the only problem user of AgiliWrap is Dragonite. Dragonair and Moltres have utilized it while staying relatively unproblematic...
Here's the deal. Agility + Partial-Trapping, at least in my experience, isn't exactly broken in the sense that it is too good. It is broken in the sense that it is uncompetitive. The risk-reward on the strategy is way off and the counter play isn't really very involved. The issue isn't so much that Agility + Partial-Trapping wins games, it is that Agility + Partial-Trapping
can win games. So why does this distinction matter?
Well, I will definitely grant that Dragonite is far and away the best user of Agility + Partial-Trapping; such is indisputable. When it comes to winning games, Dragonite is definitely the most effective user. However, no matter who the combination is on,
it is always uncompetitive. Moltres and Dragonair are both not very good. And when they set up Agility, they are not nearly as likely to outright win a game like Dragonite. However, the
competitiveness of the strategy is in no way changed. Regardless of who just used Agility, it looks the same. You still have to sit there and pray for a miss or somehow execute a successful PP Stall. Just because the strategy is worse on a Pokemon does not in any way make it more healthy. This is an extremely important point. I've already pointed this out with OHKO moves. If one OHKO move had slightly lower accuracy, nobody would suddenly assume that that move is more competitive. Speaking of OHKO moves, we can take this even further. What are the odds that a Geodude successfully uses Fissure to KO something in an RBY OU match? Given the mechanics of RBY, the answer is negligibly 0. Nonetheless, we decide to ban OHKO moves because the concept of a move that instantly KOs your opponent is inherently broken. It doesn't matter who the users are or how many there are. When the issue is a move or mechanic being uncompetitive,
you always go after the move or mechanic, not the Pokemon. Same goes for stuff like Baton Pass. Generations like ADV and DPP could have easily sifted through the users of Baton Pass and decided which are good and which aren't but they didn't because Baton Pass, as a concept, is always uncompetitive. Again, you always go after the move or mechanic in the case of competitiveness. You can refer to my initial post for more examples of such bans taking place. In summary, the number and power of the Pokemon in question are completely irrelevant. So I don't agree that Dragonite is the only problem user of Agility + Partial Trapping, and even if it was, I would still firmly believe that banning Dragonite is the wrong course of action.
I apologize if it seems like I'm singling you out, PvK, but trust me I'm not. You're not the only one to say this, you just happen to be the most recent example.
Funnily enough, seems like meloyy posted during my composition of this post. I agree with meloyy's conclusion, but I used very different logic to arrive at it. To me, the viability of Moltres and Dragonair is simply not relevant to this discussion.
So yeah, thanks for tuning to Volk's thoughts this week.
edit: So, I have gotten some criticism for being selective in what bans I have chosen to discuss and those I have chosen to ignore. To make sure this argument is as clear as possible, I will directly address this discrepancy right now. The reason why I am bringing up things like the Baton Pass Ban or OHKO Clause is not to say "Complex Bans Exist." I bring these up because I believe Agility + Wrap is very comparable to these situations, significantly more so than any simple Pokemon ban. Let's now examine why.
There are two major types of bans that have been executed historically on this site. A Pokemon/Move/Mechanic (a unit that will henceforth be referred to as an "object") is either (A) overpowered or (B) uncompetitive. There are a few niche cases that don't fit in either category, but the lion's share are here. Let's start with competitiveness first because I believe that is the relevant category for the discussion today. An object is uncompetitive when it fundamentally shifts what skills competitive Pokemon values. Competitive Pokemon values many different skills such as intelligent teambuilding, guessing your opponent's team composition and move sets, predicting your opponent's moves, managing statistical advantages, and so on. Put simply, a lot of this game is designed around outplaying your opponent. When one or more of these pillars is jeopardized, we have to ask ourselves if we think the object is uncompetitive. Let's take Baton Pass as an example. Baton Pass teams warp the metagame, as they do not reflect the competitive skills we value in this game. Elements like proper prediction aren't really relevant in a Baton Pass metagame. If somebody told you every single move your opponent would make before your opponent executed it, you would think that game would be an easy victory. However, this isn't really the case against Baton Pass teams. Whether you win against a Baton Pass team isn't really contingent on whether or not you know what your opponent will do and if you can respond to it accordingly. It more or less just comes down to if you have the right handful of moves that handle Baton Pass Chains, like Taunt or Whirlwind, somewhere on your team. This is a bad thing. When you have an object that doesn't place value on the core aspects of competitive Pokemon and has uninvolved counter play, we generally call that object uncompetitive. Historically, when an object is uncompetitive, the object itself is targeted and removed, because the users of the object don't really matter. Like Baton Pass isn't necessarily potent with many Pokemon, like say Eevee (prior to Z-Moves). Despite this, we disallow Baton Pass as a whole anyway because a move that has the traits of Baton Pass is inherently uncompetitive. It doesn't matter how good the Pokemon is, we don't want an object like Baton Pass anywhere near our competitive game.
Evasion Clause and the recent ADV Sand Veil Ban are based on the same philosophy. They warp the meta to artificially reward usage of otherwise sub-optimal strategies such as using Aerial Ace or Swift. Instead of outplaying your opponent, all you are doing is praying for a miss ("praying for a miss," where have I heard that line before...). They change the skills we value and negatively effect what attributes are valued in teambuilding. This is why they are uncompetitive and why they are hit with "complex bans" rather than bans that go after the best users. To be absolutely clear, I think the Sand Veil ban was done correctly. A ban on Cacturne and/or Gligar misses the point of what the actual issue is. Moreover, Sandslash may be wholly unviable, but again we don't want this uncompetitive object in our competitive game. Banning Sand Veil was the obvious and correct choice.
Let's compare this to something that is overpowered. In other words, how does my argument differ from someone saying "we should ban Libero and not Cinderace?" Well, it differs a lot and I will explain why now. For the sake of simplicity, let's take an extreme example. Why do we ban Arceus from OU? To answer this question, let's ask the converse: what if Arceus was legal? Well, the odd reality is that the metagame of any Generation wouldn't change that much. Now obviously, which Pokemon are good and which aren't may change dramatically. However, when it comes down to core strategy, not much actually changes. A metagame with Arceus would still value good teambuilding and smart prediction. The better player should still win, assuming both players are using Arceus. Contrast this to say Sand Veil, where even if both players are using it, the first person to pull it off has a clear advantage, for they will have set up first. This isn't necessarily the case with Arceus or even stuff like Cinderace or Dracovish or whatever, because they can still be removed from the game with proper play, especially if you have your own. The weird thing is that Pokemon that we ban from OU tend not to actually change what skills we value. The reason why we ban them is simply because they are too strong. They can still be outplayed, but the capable Pokemon are few and/or inconsistent. Teambuilding values the same skills, but it just becomes more centralized around a single Pokemon. The skills don't change, just the diversity and list of eligible elements associated with the tier does. Now, I'll concede that some Pokemon are more uncompetitive than overpowered, but most do lean into overpowered territory. They are banned because they are dominant in the game more than anything else. They seldom warp the core tenants of this competitive game.
Now let's evaluate Dragonite and Agility + Partial Trapping. Which category does it fit into? Well, the metagame has changed in a way that otherwise sub-optimal moves and strategies are over-valued (see Toxic's abundance). Once the object starts up, the counter play (if there is any) is not involved and does not reflect the elements of competitive Pokemon that are valued. The player that executes the object first has a clear and decisive advantage over the other, even if both players have it at their disposal. The object fundamentally changes what game we are playing, as elements of prediction and even teambuilding begin to erode. Knowing this, it should be obvious why Agility + Partial-Trapping is the issue here: it is uncompetitive. And the concept always is; it doesn't matter who is using it.
Ban Agility + Partial-Trapping to address the core issue at hand.
Note: I wanted to add some additional info about banning Libero over Cinderace. A ban like this doesn't make sense for two reasons. First, Libero doesn't change what skills we value in this game. It just doesn't. Second, Libero, as a concept, is not broken. Unlike Evasion Moves and the like, Libero (and Protean) would be perfectly healthy on most Pokemon. It is simply the confluence of Cinderace's attributes and the Libero ability that makes the Pokemon broken. Thus banning the Pokemon makes sense. Agility + Partial-Trapping, on the other hand, has the same uncompetitive effects (all of which are listed in the previous paragraph) regardless of the user. This is a clear distinction and justifies why a Complex Ban is necessary here but not for Libero + Cinderace. The same logic applies to Speed Boost Blaziken by the way.
Second Note: For my Arceus rant, we can use DPP Ubers as a case study. When Arceus was banned, nobody ever really argued that Arceus was uncompetitive (and at least one person went into detail explaining why it wasn't). Arceus was kicked out of the tier simply because it was too strong. It lacked a significant number or reliable counters and it had a centralizing effect on the meta. Ultimately, nobody liked it, so it was removed. Nothing about the "essence" of the game changed, it was just Arceus was too good at playing by the rules we laid out for competitive Pokemon. The Pokemon was fine from a competitiveness standpoint, but its power level was too high. It's a much simpler case than something like Sand Veil, Baton Pass, or Agility + Wrap, all of which fundamentally change the game we play for the worse.
