Regarding ADV UU's NFE Clause

Delta 2777

Machampion
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis the Smogon Tour Season 10 Champion
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.
 
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

慈陰
is a Tutor
**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

the grandmaster of all things evil!
is a Community Contributor
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
 
Last edited:

Kris

broken bricks
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
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.
 

Kris

broken bricks
is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
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.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top