Right now, it's unlikely to have Dry Pass unbanned knowing how things work here ( I fully support the Unban though). However, if a different Gen (such as Adv or BW) decided in the future to allow only Dry Pass, that would work as a precedent and it would be an hypocrisy not to at least test Dry Pass in SS. So, for all the supporters of this like me, the best strat is to wait until someone breaks the Adv OU Meta with Agility + Roar + BP Zapdos and watch how the council decides that the set "is unhealthy", but dry passing Zapdos " Is healthy and should be preserved ". Then just ask the same treatment for SS or Gen 9 if we are then already.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Metagame SS OU Metagame Discussion Thread v7 (Usage Stats in post #3539)
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
Such a discussion would probably be a lot more appropriate for Policy Review I guess, but not having access anyway I'll just have to post my thoughts here.
IMO Dry Passing is something that has been very badly handled throughout the generations. I don't think banning Swords Dance + BP or whatever should be the objective. There are countless moves and abilities that can grant stat modifiers and I don't think banning SD+BP only to end up dealing with rng fisher meteor mash jirachi really is a solution.
When you think about it, a lot of smogon's bans and clauses are nothing more a gentleman's agreement if you were to reproduce the same thing on cartridge. Sleep Clause is basically the only exception that I can think of, working differently from any cartridge mechanic (and that has caused quite the debates over the years). Dynamax clause is not us using a format that doesn't contain Dynamax, it's the two players agreeing not to press the button. etc.
So, on that same "gentleman's agreement" train of thought, I never really understood why it would be impossible to implement a Baton Pass clause that would simply state that you are not allowed to press BP if you have any positive effect (aka any positive stat boost + a list of beneficial effects that can be easily narrowed down with proper effort, including but not limited to Ingrain, Focus Energy, etc). That's it. No complex ban needed. You can even run SD and BP on Ninjask at the same time if you want - you just won't be able to press BP once it has a boost.
Obviously it would require some programming which may or may not be available, but considering what showdown already allows it doesn't exactly seem like a big innovation (like you can easily picture something similar to the handling of magnet pull, where a message tells you that you have acquired stat boosts and are thus unable to press baton pass, and should you try to press it anyway the server just refuses to play the move). Is there anything I'm missing on a conceptual/logical level that'd make such a solution impossible? All the bans I've seen happen throughout the years have always been arbitrary, weird bans that do not address the core issue and simply try to mitigate it by banning smeargle, or ban BP only on specific pokemon, or only specific combinations of moves, etc. Those bans are awful and extremely prone to abuse imo.
IMO Dry Passing is something that has been very badly handled throughout the generations. I don't think banning Swords Dance + BP or whatever should be the objective. There are countless moves and abilities that can grant stat modifiers and I don't think banning SD+BP only to end up dealing with rng fisher meteor mash jirachi really is a solution.
When you think about it, a lot of smogon's bans and clauses are nothing more a gentleman's agreement if you were to reproduce the same thing on cartridge. Sleep Clause is basically the only exception that I can think of, working differently from any cartridge mechanic (and that has caused quite the debates over the years). Dynamax clause is not us using a format that doesn't contain Dynamax, it's the two players agreeing not to press the button. etc.
So, on that same "gentleman's agreement" train of thought, I never really understood why it would be impossible to implement a Baton Pass clause that would simply state that you are not allowed to press BP if you have any positive effect (aka any positive stat boost + a list of beneficial effects that can be easily narrowed down with proper effort, including but not limited to Ingrain, Focus Energy, etc). That's it. No complex ban needed. You can even run SD and BP on Ninjask at the same time if you want - you just won't be able to press BP once it has a boost.
Obviously it would require some programming which may or may not be available, but considering what showdown already allows it doesn't exactly seem like a big innovation (like you can easily picture something similar to the handling of magnet pull, where a message tells you that you have acquired stat boosts and are thus unable to press baton pass, and should you try to press it anyway the server just refuses to play the move). Is there anything I'm missing on a conceptual/logical level that'd make such a solution impossible? All the bans I've seen happen throughout the years have always been arbitrary, weird bans that do not address the core issue and simply try to mitigate it by banning smeargle, or ban BP only on specific pokemon, or only specific combinations of moves, etc. Those bans are awful and extremely prone to abuse imo.
I think it's important for people to understand that Dry Passing isn't even simply a complex ban that people want to allow, the whole situation of wanting to ban x move after using x move is actually a call to implement a sim mod, essentially a second custom mod akin to sleep clause.
I think Merritt puts it best in the old policy review thread.
Ultimately i don't think the benefits of adding drypassing justifies the implementation of a simulator mod, and i would urge people to reconsider the precedent of adding this idea.
I think Merritt puts it best in the old policy review thread.
Ultimately i don't think the benefits of adding drypassing justifies the implementation of a simulator mod, and i would urge people to reconsider the precedent of adding this idea.
This has already happened though. In GSC you can use Sleep Moves and can use Trap Moves, but never on the same set. Similar enough, in BW you can use Swift Swim and can use Drizzle, but not on the same team.
Not exactly the same situation, not exactly the same era when it happened, but it's not so different either.
If we're talking about implementing a teambuilder ban, we'd be talking about banning baton pass in combination with 20 abilities, 20 items and 40-ish moves (all of them listed in the same policy review post), there has never been a complex ban of this scale to my knowledge, and I don't see why it would be necessitated here.
There has. The BP Ban itself. First restriction was to limit it to 3 users. Then to one user. Then to one user that could not pass Speed + another Stat, which is quite close to what you are talking about. In fact,its arguably even more complex. Eventually it was banned too, but not for consistency or complexity but because it was deemed unhealthy too ( which I don't agree with, but that is another topic).
On paper the implementation of a complex ban on dry passing seems to hold some validity, though in practice it is more of a cumbersome issue. As Mimikyu Stardust mentioned, these sorts of changes tend to be avoided for one reason or another. In general, complex bans are rather controversial and dry passing so happens to pertain with other such issues of metagame altering changes that would be considered drastic and / or complex. My personal opinion doesn't stray very far from this. I dislike the idea of complex banning anything or causing drastic and unnecessary changes and shifts, especially this gen where I feel we have reached a point of equilibrium. That said, I believe further experimentation with these concepts in the future isn't out of the picture, and I like the idea of adding another layer of strategy to things. However, I doubt they would be (or should be) implemented anytime soon.
Last edited:
I think the major difference there is that with the moves or abilities, those are determined before the mon even enters the battle, so there are a fixed number of behaviors that can occur that align with cartridge-;legal mechanics. Dry Passing, if it is not implemented as "you can't use a team where someone has Baton Pass + a way to boost" (which is a far reaching net), brings up the sim mod issues mentioned since now you're affecting interactions the player can take mid-battle (and some of the following need to be considered even then).
Not to mention all the edge cases to account for: Does this extend to ANY kind of boosting (like Ancient Power procs)? Does it count if the opponent inflicts it (such as via Swagger/Flatter or tricking a berry)? What traits qualify as a Boost (besides stats, Substitutes and Ingrain also pass for example)? What if a Pokemon is unable to do anything besides pass while it has a stat up in these scenarios (such as through PP Stalling or Disable)?
Sure, many of these are edge cases, but then was Endless Battle Clause not also implemented for an edge case since that case still broke the spirit of Smogon OU, which I've understood to be "create a reasonable/balanced competitive environment for Pokemon PVP that can be replicated on unmodified copies of the games for the generation in question"?
I just feel like with the way Baton Pass works right now, there'd be a lot of mushrooming of cases or interactions to account for to allow specifically Dry Passing back in without either modifying the Sim's behavior compared to cart, or letting a bunch of potentially exploitative cases slip through the cracks that the initial ban was concerned with in the first place. All this to allow Baton Pass back in when, while helpful to some mons, it's not like it'd dramatically improve the current SwSh OU (which generally is regarded to be in a pretty decent place right now from what I can tell).
I don’t know if dry pass is a good idea, but I don’t think the implementation is that difficult. A builder ban on baton pass + any means of boosting stats/substitute should work. Yes, that includes ancient power. Ingrain can be included if we want. If the opponent raises your stats and then you pass them, then that’s too bad for them I would say?
If we do an in-battle thing, something like “a Pokémon cannot use baton pass if it has any boosts or has used substitute or ingrain, unless they have no other clickable option” should probably suffice.
If we do an in-battle thing, something like “a Pokémon cannot use baton pass if it has any boosts or has used substitute or ingrain, unless they have no other clickable option” should probably suffice.
Last edited:
if teleport is allowed then i don't really see an issue with dry baton pass unless I'm missing something ( which is totally possible)Hey i was wondering, is there any possibility of Dry passing being unbanned?
I know baton pass is super good so passing any stats or even minor things like aqua ring should prob stay banned but, seeing a rise in eject button pokemon like pex, lando and others kinda wish we had a "cheap" alternative where we can pivot out without being messed up.
the main users of drypass by seeing the list would beShedinja,
Victini,
Zapdos,
Pult and maybe
hatterene.
theres def more abusers likeUmbreon,
Jirachi and
Mew but those are just examples i wanna put for potential users of dry pass as it does definetly help
So those are some example mons that would benefit with drypassing, it is definetly an intresting discussion and i would like to hear everyone elses opinion on it, i wouldnt think it would be too overpowered and would help with the helmet chips and eject button running around OU right now. i know that this would make baton pass a complex ban again which the council is trying to avoid but it is definetly something that would add to the tier.
Teleport has -6 Priority, whereas a Dry Pass is 0 Priority. This is a relevant difference in how they can be affected by turn-order, which in turn pertains to how they affect momentum passing. This on top of differences in learnsets in general, since several Pokemon probably get one but not the other.
sure, but why would more non-attacking pivoting moves in the metagame be generally bad? The only potential offender in particular seems to be Dragapult, which based on a recent Finchinator post could be a potential suspect even now, and especially earlier this generation has always had complaints about it so in that case it would be more of the mon breaking the move rather than the move being broke.
Frankly, this is why I think dry-passing should (won't, but should) be allowed if Teleport is. -6 priority on a pivoting move is a good thing; it's given rise to its own new strats like WishPort and FuturePort, whereas dry-passing was only ever a bootleg VoltTurn for 'Mons that didn't learn the real thing.
The difference between Teleport and Baton Pass is that you'd need a complex ban for Baton Pass lol
sure, but baton pass has a history of the complex ban approach
being able to ensure baton pass is only able to be used as a pure dry pass through a ban is very complex and leads to a lot of arguments over how we should tier as a community and how strictly we need to adhere to what can be replicated on cartridge. to make it identical to teleport (besides the -6 priority) there would either need to be a heavy complex ban or a softmod to prevent this. the two most apt comparisons are magnet pull (debatably) and sleep, which has been a contentious subject on its own. linked a policy review post discussing people's issues with the handling of sleep bc it has many similar arguments to the core of this issue.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/on-sleep-clause.3695183/post-9062006
Which post was this? Hadn't seen it yet.
It was finch acknowledging the fact that some people were worried about dragapult and wanted a suspect, not that he supports or does not support a suspect due to his own personal preferences.
Yeah, but it's my understanding he implied that alongside Weavile, these complaints are at least worth looking into which is just for me to say that Dragapult being potentially busted or borderline busted already, and then being broken by drypass should be a Dragapult problem rather than Drypass problem as a whole, as the Pokemon listed in Stardust's post besides Dragapult don't seem to be anywhere near being considered for investigation currently.
We are nowhere near close to a Dragapult suspect. Some people list it as a concern, but there's hardly any support overall and none on the council. It is one of many Pokemon that gets mentioned to me on a regular basis. Nothing is close to a suspect right now in all honesty, but Weavile has the most support.
And pretty much all of the baton pass complex bans have been replaced by a complete ban
true, but then the question is why wasn't a complete ban the option from the start? There must have been a desire to preserve the move as much as possible, but many attempts at nerfing it hardly diluted the baton pass+ stat pass combo, so I figure the best solution was to just ban it outright. But from what I've seen in this thread so far, there is nothing broken about dry passing, and it's likely that the loss of drypassing wasn't taken into consideration because no one was focused on it at that time
Even the allegedly most borked abuser of it in Dragapult is currently nowhere near close to a suspect test according to the council so it's doubtful in the end, that it will actually be broken with it, but even if it is then that would just be a Pult problem.
The topic does come up from time to time whenever baton pass Is in a discussion, but ultimately it kind of comes down to "why are we trying to preserve this element by making overly specific conditions to allow it when we can just simply remove the problem".
Beyond that, allowing for Drypassing that thus requires overly complex rules would ironically make some Pokemon who run it for this purpose more constrained in team building as if they can't pass stats or anything, that cuts down on moveset flexibility and what can be run alongside it. This means no attacking moves that could boost a stat, which there happen to be quite a few of.
I doubt many Pokemon would run it even if it was legal just to drypass anyways. The chip spread from uturn and volt switch are highly valuable and the mons that only have BP to pseudo pivot, would remain niche or still not see use. Which sort of drives home the question of "is it really worth the hassle and precedent just to enable a few specific Pokemon to have a niche".
I guess the logic is being as close to the cartridge game as possible while still being balanced even if that means some extra modding or coding when practically possible, such as the logic of sleep clause for instance. it may not benefit the metagame as a whole per se but it doesn't hurt the competitive environment and gives more tools and strategies for at least a few mons.
The classic " but then why not allow Blaze Blaziken but ban the combination of Speed boost+ Blaziken" runs counter to this, admittedly, but Smogon hasn't been consistent with this logic in all aspects of tiering across the generations.
That's kind of the thing I don't get and which I see so many people take for granted (not necessarily you only, just in general in this discussion). Why does allowing Dry Passing require complex rules? 'Pokemon with beneficial stat boosts at the start of the turn cannot select Baton Pass' is a very concise and simple sentence. It could just be a showdown-side thing. You don't need to restrict movesets or do weird complex bans. If a mon has a boost at the time of selecting a move, it's not allowed to select Baton Pass (unless it's the only thing it can do - good luck abusing this on purpose). If tricking your opponent a stat-boosting berry and proccing it on purpose just to disable baton pass on the next turn or using Swagger becomes anything more than a meme as a result of this, then sure more complex rules might be necessary, but i personally don't believe that's anything that'll ever become more than a funny thought experiment.
It's no different than a Dynamax clause really. The shiny button is there if you were to do a 1v1 on cartridge, you just have an agreement not to press it. Why can't Baton Pass be the same? If you aren't dry passing you'd agree not to press it. Sleep Clause is *way* more unrealistic in that regard and is still widely accepted (and good).
There could be an argument in the past as to it not being applicable to cartridge play, where it could be admittedly be a bit difficult to track if you're still in the clear to use baton pass after 5 calm minds, 4 metal sounds of which 1 missed, a magic bounced eerie impulse, and 3 confides, but the game itself has an interface to track stat boosts super easily now so that's kind of a non-issue. I could see that argument being semi-recevable in older gens though tbh, but this is gen 8.
I really, really don't see what's complex about such a potential clause tbh. (And if there is some flaw in my logic I would absolutely love to know what it is because i can't find it, but surely other people would have reached the same conclusion if there wasn't)
Last edited: