Regarding ADV UU's NFE Clause

[Delta 2777]

If we're going to allow all Arceus formes in DPP Ubers after 10+ years of being banned I don't see why we can't allow Haunter and Diglett and some other irrelevant mons in Adv UU. I realize the circumstances of the bans are different but ultimately both are antiquated rules/clauses and the Arceus unban is far more impactful than the NFE unban would be.

 

[BKC]

this thread is an example of one of the worst things on smogon: people who don't play the game trying to fuck it up for those who do. as fun as arguing policy for the sake of it might be, the correct course of action is whatever the adv uu playerbase would prefer. if they want to allow haunter, fine. if they want to test some random BL pokemon, fine. if they want to ban kangaskhan, fine. they play the tier, it should be up to them, not a bunch of people whose posts are prefaced with "I don't play adv uu but"

 

[Diophantine]

**Obligatory opener to let you all know that I do have a bit of experience in ADV UU**


I share the same opinion as both BKC and ChillShadow. What can be done about this, though, is similar to what Earthworm did when he made GSC NU tiering decisions. He systematically consulted the playerbase (people that played NUPL, people that played in his GSC NU tournaments, and people that frequented the GSC NU ladder) through an online form. He asked for opinions on the metagame, opinions on his proposed changes, and weighted each players feedback by how much they played the tier. I think this is probably the best way to go about this. The people who play this format - in other words, the people who matter the most in this context - will get their voices heard on how to change a metagame that only they play.

In the worst case scenario, people realise they've made a horrible decision because somehow Haunter and co. create a really unhealthy and uncompetitive metagame. Then they can just discuss further changes. There's no rush to perfect the tier.

 

[Wigglytuff]

At face value, Kris's original post and proposal has no issues either logically or within the tiering rules currently in place for previous generation lower tiers. However, the crucial missing piece of information that seems to be the disconnect is that in actuality, NFE Clause has been enforced by the players of ADV UU, even if not by the format. At the level of theory, this is true; the SmogDex Page of ADV lists NFE Clause. But it's also true at the practical level.

(1 2 3 4 5) - These are links to the "playoffs" rounds of all three iterations of the ADV UU Cup that had replays. With the exception of Scyther, no NFEs are used. The same holds true for the last two iterations of UUPL (VII, VI). Ditto (no pun intended) for the UU Championships (1, 2) that included ADV UU. To Eeveeto's claim of using Diglett in RoA Olympics, I can only apologize as a co-host of RoAO for the oversight and hope that this thread serves as a reminder of the format's rules to the next iteration's ADV UU competitors and hosts. However, the fact remains that in the important, official circuit tours, ADV UU has been played with NFE Clause.

The original post has wording that could be misconstrued as otherwise, such as

because it hasn't been strictly enforced for an extremely long time

While this is alluding to ADV UU's implementation on PS!, it doesn't completely reflect how ADV UU has been played. It's led to some misinformed and, for whatever reason, incendiary posts. Lines such as these:

Everybody agrees it's dumb as shit, is the playerbase really so terrified of even the chance of a shake-up that they won't even kill something founded on such stupid logic?

Is it really worth preserving this hilariously stupid clause that pretty much everyone agrees is a glaring relic of a different time? It hasn't even been fucking enforced in ages.

that simply restate the OP, but overextend the bounds of civility and misrepresent the concerns of the other party do nothing to move the situation forward. I'd like to ask for the OP to be updated to prevent further misunderstanding. In this way, we can move past the concerns voiced by ADV UU players, that outsiders are impeding on the tier that they play, and focus on discussion of the direction of ADV UU as also outlined in the OP.

i dont play adv uu, but thanks to Earthworm for answering clarifying questions i had in the course of making this post

 

[dhelmise]

At face value, Kris's original post and proposal has no issues either logically or within the tiering rules currently in place for previous generation lower tiers. However, the crucial missing piece of information that seems to be the disconnect is that in actuality, NFE Clause has been enforced by the players of ADV UU, even if not by the format. At the level of theory, this is true; the SmogDex Page of ADV lists NFE Clause. But it's also true at the practical level.

(1 2 3 4 5) - These are links to the "playoffs" rounds of all three iterations of the ADV UU Cup that had replays. With the exception of Scyther, no NFEs are used. The same holds true for the last two iterations of UUPL (VII, VI). Ditto (no pun intended) for the UU Championships (1, 2) that included ADV UU. To Eeveeto's claim of using Diglett in RoA Olympics, I can only apologize as a co-host of RoAO for the oversight and hope that this thread serves as a reminder of the format's rules to the next iteration's ADV UU competitors and hosts. However, the fact remains that in the important, official circuit tours, ADV UU has been played with NFE Clause.

The original post has wording that could be misconstrued as otherwise, such as

While this is alluding to ADV UU's implementation on PS!, it doesn't completely reflect how ADV UU has been played. It's led to some misinformed and, for whatever reason, incendiary posts. Lines such as these:


that simply restate the OP, but overextend the bounds of civility and misrepresent the concerns of the other party do nothing to move the situation forward. I'd like to ask for the OP to be updated to prevent further misunderstanding. In this way, we can move past the concerns voiced by ADV UU players, that outsiders are impeding on the tier that they play, and focus on discussion of the direction of ADV UU as also outlined in the OP.

i dont play adv uu, but thanks to Earthworm for answering clarifying questions i had in the course of making this post

I've edited the OP. Partially my fault for expecting people to interpret my words the exact same as I interpreted them (no, this is not a stab at anyone, just an oversight on my end). I'd like to make it known that this post explains the intention I was trying to get across by saying "strictly enforced"; thanks for that.

 

[dhelmise]

Just wondering but if the PS! version of ADV UU is not accurate then would the problem not be solved if the PS! version is aligned with the already implemented NFE ban of ADV UU? It's already considered a ban clause no?

I mean, this sounds better than just abolishing something that is already pretty rooted into the playerbase.

sorry in adv if I sound ignorant. just rlly curious :X

The PS banlist has been rectified for a bit over a month now.

 

[HSOWA]

sorry for the bump

With the freeing of old gen lower tiers, can we remove this stupid rule from this tier? From what I've gathered, old gen UUs used to implement this rule back before 2007, but both RBY, GSC and DPP dropped it later, however ADV kept the rule for reasons unknown. It seems silly to keep it in place now, especially as NFEs can literally be used in NU lol

 

[Ark]

I personally don't want NFEs freed, but I also don't really mind freeing them too much. ADV kept the rule until 2014, when NFEs were freed in NU, and they're obviously allowed in PU (which was created in like, 2018?). UU is the only tier that still has this rule. Now, I don't mind doing away with it, but I absolutely don't think it should happen on the basis of "well NU did it so UU should, too!!!" or a similar sentiment. What NU does and does not do should not really concern UU at all, the same way they shouldn't be bothered too much by what UU does.

In general, NFEs don't seem to add too much to the tier. I think Haunter would be ok, and would probably be able to fill the role of (Salac) Banette on HOs. Metang might have some viability as a normal resist, since we're sorta lacking in those, but it's still sorta squishy and passive. These are all things I'm willing to begrudgingly explore, although I'm not sure other people who play the tier are willing to do so as well. My one worry is that we develop much like NU does - where the playerbase (with Bughouse I believe pioneering this) realized that Diglett is very potent and can enable some of the best mons in the tier to an almost unhealthy degree. Now, Diglett itself is also very much enabled by Baton Pass, so I don't think it'd be nearly as good in UU, on top of UU mons just being harder to trap by Diglett for obvious reasons. But the way I see it, this either adds nothing at all or adds an incredibly stupid element.

Of course, this is just theorymonning at the moment. We've had the old challenge format with NFEs allowed, and there were a couple used on the seasonal ladders back in the day, but it's hard to really conclude anything from that. And I don't think "trapping mon is either gonna be bad or stupid" should hold back the freeing of all NFEs. It's moreso that I don't think freeing NFEs would add much good, while very potentially adding a bad element. And as I stated above, I don't want to free anything just for aesthetics because NU decided to make a change over half a decade ago. The only reason for doing away with the NFE clause should be the playerbase's willingness to use them, and to experiment with them. So I guess from my point of view, this should require a vote similar to the Conkeldurr one.

 

[Oglemi]

The rule itself has never made much sense since Scyther was allowed as an exception (and I believe Vigoroth and Trapinch as well). It was largely just to ban Chansey and Kadabra and to limit the overall pool so someone just didn't get wrecked by some obscure mon nobody was prepared for, in the same vein as to why the BL list is so long and contains stuff like Dodrio and Swellow (they're "almost/borderline" ou-level strength, and people wanted to use stuff like Fearow instead of Dodrio).

Just do away with the rule, I hardly think Diglett will make an impact (course I was kinda wrong on nu sableye but then again now it seems little use so shrug)

 

[fatty]

I wholeheartedly agree that this rule was and continues to be “dumb.” If it didn’t exist since day one I would have no issue with NFE mons in this meta, as is with literally every other gen on this site. The thing is though this didn’t exist since day one. If I could have usage stat based tiers in adv I’d take that too because it’s more objective and I believe there are some BL mons that would have a nice home here as well, but, well, that’s not how ADV was tiered. As it stands, the fact is that the meta is in a very good place (except for dumb ez button mu fish linoone but I digress). I don’t see the point in changing this tier from a player perspective. You can argue you don’t think these will have an impact but it’s just theorymon and I’ve played enough Pokémon to know that when a trapper or decent ghost is available it will be used. I don’t think it would be gamebreaking, but I also don’t care enough about getting rid of this “dumb” rule to risk changing up what I believe is a very balanced meta, Kanga jokes aside. I’m not really staunchly against getting rid of the clause I just think I lean ever so slightly towards not changing the tier.

 

[Bouff]

feel essentially the same way as fatty on this. the rule is really stupid and doesn't make any actual sense, so it would be right to just toss it away entirely. problem is that this tier is in a really good shape development wise and i think it has room to develop further, and changing it has a realistic potential to make things shittier. what this potential actually means is that we go through with this, and later on its found that during whatever uu team tour comes after (using teamtours as an example because the games here are as high quality as you're going to get) something like diglett makes the tier actively worse early on, and therefore the tour worse. if that's the case then we can ban it of course, but by nature i don't think it'll be something that happens before whatever tour is done is over, meaning that season is fucked.

might just be too scared about this, but running the risk of fucking with what is a very good metagame for the sake of Cleanliness and Consistency, and then having to spend time fixing it up is not something i care to have for this tier. and i mean this tier, because i don't even think on principle its a bad idea to free things in old gen lower tiers. it just is for this one.

 

[Expulso]

(as long as kadabra is still banned, as oglemi implied here) i consider diglett the big sticking point for a possible adv uu nfe clause unban; trapping is dumb and adds a relevant, significant element to the meta that wasnt there before. i think the other nfes like haunter, pupitar, and metang would be niche and provide avenues for creativity, making a possible unban of the others a slight positive in my eyes.

i understand why bouff, ark, brewfasa (and probably others) would want to keep the meta in this exact state, it's a very well-liked meta. as i said above, my own opinion is that freeing niche NFEs like haunter, metang, pupitar, and whatever else would cause a slight but interesting shift in the meta (analogous to but not the same as the natural shifts in popularity, trends, etc. that occur in tours like UUPL). again, however, diglett would make things worse; the presence of a trapper is a significant addition, and one that i'd consider detrimental to the gradual, strategic play of adv uu

 

[TSR]

In recent times I've added this tier to the list of old gen UUs I am Invested in. I've refrained from posting in the ORAS Conk and SM Blissey threads so far despite them both being tiers I have significant regular interest in the health and balance of because I feel like I don't have much to add thanks to the overwhelming support of a lot of people who already did the posting, and me getting late to the party parroting 4 or 5 key points already brought up won't really help anything. Here though it's a bit of a different story since this thread isn't zeroing in on a single pretty much universally agreed upon broken mon in ADV, rather a quite silly tiering restriction that got put in place by nothing but theory work many moons ago.

As for my actual point: while I do think the NFE clause is a silly kind of thing to have in any tiering process and probably shouldn't have been a thing to begin with, I do agree with most of the above sentiments here that ADV UU is currently in a really good place with the recent complete nuking of Baton Pass as well as the playerbase being involved in developing the metagame. The overall metagame is doing pretty well and is universally liked by everyone playing it regularly, myself included. Obviously as such I as well as many others would be hesitant to just unban a bunch of potentially new threats even if I think most of us would agree none of the NFEs that would be allowed by such a decision would have a super profound impact on the tier. Diglett (though I admit trapping would probably be a net negative to begin with) even seems extremely underwhelming thanks to it being not very offensively potent outside of picking off chipped stuff (it's not scoring anything close to game breaking OHKOs on things other than a few things like Lanturn and Ampharos, depending on spreads of course) + being complete defensive dead weight in a trade heavy tier like this one. A lot of the best mons (Kanga Walrein Vileplume etc) have a both reliable defensive potency while also posing significant offensive threats themselves. To finally quit rambling, what I'm really trying to say is that this is all still theory work. Unlike the Conk and Blissey situations, we don't have years of evidence in the tier at hand of X Y Z mons being oppressive metagame forces. So what I am proposing here is that we make some via some sort of (semi) long-term suspecting process. You can't really ask anyone that's been performing in stuff like UUPL and UU Classic for their informed opinion on a theoretical unban of NFEs for example, literally no one can provide their insight on a ADV UU with Metang allowed. In my opinion, the best course of action would be to start a list of qualifying voters from 0, and just create discussion and actual empirical evidence to work with. I obviously couldn't tell you every detail at the moment as I most certainly wouldn't be the sole overseer of such a process. I would imagine something to the tune of several tournaments (bracket tours + live hopefully), a ladder to gather some longish-term usage stats (though this one obviously has a good chance of going to hell fast) as well as hopefully regular discussion over the course of the process. Ideally this would attract the same crowd of people I mentioned above to come in and vote for the tier they give a shit about. And even if the unban goes through and something develops into an unhealthy force later down the road, what would be the problem with going back and looking at mons on a case by case basis from then on?

TL;DR - the NFE clause has been nothing but theory work from day 1, so we should go forward in a way that actually creates some numbers to work with before making a one-week decision. Not sure on the exact process but giving adequate time for the playerbase to feel out the changes such a proposal would make seems like the right move to me.

e: probably should specify I meant to say the tournament stuff I proposed here should be its own side thing before we go through with the potential changes and allow it regularly in yearly tournaments before UUPL and other such annual tours