Survey Discussing Future Tiering Policy

[-Flygon-]

What is the call for forcing someone to tell someone what Charizard you are using? That's their own problem for not having a check/counter to one or the other, they're as common in OU as flies on rotting meat. RotomPoison and Shurtugal are completely right, that would be the stupidest and most unnecessary complex ban in history. No point in discussing it imo, but feel free to waste your time. Also Slayer95, he's just pointing out the sheer stupidity of the idea of a Charizard clause, he's not trying to "censor the survey".

 

[Ruffles]

First of all, why did we ban Genesect, M-Lule, Blaziken, Deo-N, M-Kang, and M-gengar? Because all of these pokemon shit on all strategies. All of them fucked HO, Stall, Balanced, VoltTurn, everything.

On the other hand, Deo-S, Deo-D, Aegislash, Char-X, Bisharp, Landorus, Thundurus, none of them shit on all battle styles, Deo-S helps HO hinder Stall and balanced but only in the short run, HO doesn't really care. All HO, Balanced, and Stall use Deo-D, HO use it for hazard stacking + fast taunt while stall uses magic coat / SR / t-wave / S-toss or some shit like that, all styles benefit so it kind of balances out. Aegislash can do some work against all styles, but not 1 set alone can do all that, Char-X isn't very effective against other HO because Thundurus-I can t-wave and even stall has quag, it just does work against unprepared team and some other work to HO, Bisharp is the same, Landorus does a lot of work against stall but it is shit against HO/Bulky Offensive/Balanced because really it doesn't do too much and is revenge killed easily. Thundurus is very versatile, it can, like aegislash, shit on all styles but not in 1 set, like NP + Taunt shits on stall while T-wave LO 3 attacks / 2 attacks + sub + T-wave/NP/Taunt shits on HO/Balanced.

I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate on this, but the metagame is pretty balanced.



IDK why people are complaining of it not being balanced, Aegislash has at least 1 check on every team, Deo-S and Deo-D can be limited through taunt and the hazards can be removed later, Bisharp & Char X can be revenge killed easily / stopped by Quag [really common on stall], landorus can be revenge easily and thundurus can be worn down pretty easily w/ hazard and LO + common things on stall can wall it through lack of coverage like quag/chansey/mega venusar.

 

[Subject 18]

ookay... No one said that you are being forced to tell your opponent which Zard you are using. What Chou was saying is that implementing a clause on the simulator that says which Charizard someone is using is not going to happen because it involves changing game mechanics, much like sleep clause, which was an exception. If there will be a test on charizard it will be on the individual Mega Stones not some clause on the sim that tells you which one the opponent is using. Good lord people can you calm down. It's not on the table, we can enforce things like that on WiFi... No need to get up in arms over this, good god.

 

[RotomPoison]

You go with Showdown's rules if you play on Showdown. If you agree to play OU on cart, what's stopping your opponent from bringing Ubers? That clause pretty much states, "if you use a Charizardite you have to let your opponent know which one it is". If, like on cart, you don't abide by the agreed rules, you forfeit the match. And if you don't want to do that then don't use it in the first place. This isn't on the table right now and is merely a discussion, no need to blow things up.

Ever hear of "common decency"

Or what about "common sense"

I don't know what you're actually trying to say here, because your arguement (?) is flawed from the ground up. Yes it is on the table because Chou brought it up. Yes there are rules if you agree on them. Yes I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because this is a biased, subjective, and just wrong argument. The fact you can't enforce this rule means it does alter game mechanics.

Pretty much what Subject 18 said.

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

Lucarionite: 125 Ban, 8 Do Not Ban, 3 Abstain -> Uber with a 94% majority

If that doesnt scream obviously broken i dont know what else does.

We SHOULDNT make decisions based on what we want, we should make decisions based on whats best for the meta, you completely confirmed my point that players will vote in suspect tests for what is in their best interest, while the council will be focused on balancing the tier. It would be great if every player voting in a suspect test were great, open minded players but we all know this is NOT true and is the reason why they are flawed and why the council system is better. Is it perfect? No its not, but it will achieve much better results in the long run as xy uu has shown whereas xy ou is still complaining about how unbalanced the tier is.

The council decided to let the people who opposed a ban have their two cents, and the community as a whole made the right decision. Perhaps a better example is Deoxys-S, who's on the chopping block again. Are you suggesting we should've banned it despite the community deciding not to? It doesn't look like the general opinion of the suspect test, that "at this stage of the meta, Deoxys-S is not broken." has changed much, with its twin being king of HO and other things like Talonflame being ubercentralizing, yet under your system, D could get quickbanned just because it MIGHT be broken in the future.

And RotomPoison , I don't see how having to announce your charizard is any more ground breaking than not being allowed to use certain pokemon. They both technically change cartridge rules, but neither change how things would transpire in battle. Of course, it still sounds utterly ridiculous (imagine trying to enforce that clause), but not enough to bitch about like this.

 

[Karxrida]

You go with Showdown's rules if you play on Showdown. If you agree to play OU on cart, what's stopping your opponent from bringing Ubers? That clause pretty much states, "if you use a Charizardite you have to let your opponent know which one it is". If, like on cart, you don't abide by the agreed rules, you forfeit the match. And if you don't want to do that then don't use it in the first place. This isn't on the table right now and is merely a discussion, no need to blow things up.
(Funny thing is I brought this up months ago.)

I don't really hold much of an opinion on it at the moment, but I'd like to hear more opinions from others.

Last time I checked, it was possible to enforce OU rules IF BOTH PLAYERS AGREE TO THEM. If one of them uses an Uber to a match they agreed to use OU mons in, THEY'RE AN ASSHOLE.

 

[TFL]

*Note that these have been widely selected from the upper ranks of S/A, and none of them are currently being considered for a suspect test-- though that could change based on the results of this survey.

If you bothered to read the OP you'd see that it's clearly not on the table, RotomPoison.

And RotomPoison , I don't see how having to announce your charizard is any more ground breaking than not being allowed to use certain pokemon. They both technically change cartridge rules, but neither change how things would transpire in battle. Of course, it still sounds utterly ridiculous (imagine trying to enforce that clause), but not enough to bitch about like this.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.

 

[RotomPoison]

And RotomPoison , I don't see how having to announce your charizard is any more ground breaking than not being allowed to use certain pokemon. They both technically change cartridge rules, but neither change how things would transpire in battle. Of course, it still sounds utterly ridiculous, but not enough to bitch about like this.

Excuse me, but Chou edited my post and I have every right to reply to him if I disagree, which I do. There is a huge difference between "do not use Genesect" and "you must talk to me during the battle and reveal your Charizard"

I'm done talking about this though, I expect a ton of hate PMs.

Edit: TFL, I never at any point mentioned that, I said that implementing it would interfere with game mechanics.

 

[Vryheid]

Landorus isn't broken either, it is hard to wall, but you can revenge kill it as easy as fuck. Ex: Greninja Ice Beam = done, really easy.

Oh boy, this argument again. Here, let me continue that for you:

Mega Kangaskhan isn't broken either, it is hard to wall, but you can revenge kill it easy as fuck. Ex: Terrakion Close Combat = done, really easy
Mega Lucario isn't broken either, it is hard to wall, but you can revenge kill it easy as fuck. Ex: Scarf Landorus T = done, really easy
Genesect isn't broken either, it is hard to wall, but you can revenge kill it easy as fuck. Ex: anything with a frigging fire type move = done, really easy

also, did you ignore where I said Lando can run a Rock Polish set, easy wiping out all those "checks"? have fun sending in Greninja when you get OHKOd by Focus Blast or Earthquake.

What I'm trying to say here is that simply saying checks exist has never been an effective argument when deciding whether or not certain Pokemon are worthy of a ban. It's important to consider how easily those checks can switch into Landorus, how easily Landorus can come into other Pokemon, and how easily Landorus can force other Pokemon out. Landorus in particular has plenty of opportunities to switch in thanks to excellent immunities to ground/electric type moves and resistance to Fighting. It also can reliably win 1v1 against the vast majority of Pokemon in the tier with less than 101 speed. Just from the A/S ranks alone, we get:

Aegislash, Mega Charizard X, Azumarill, Bisharp, Clefable, Excadrill, Gyarados Mega, Mega Scizor, Tyranitar, Venusaur, Mega Charizard Y, Ferrothorn, Heatran, Hippowdon, Kyurem B, Landorus T, Mandibuzz, Breloom, Chansey, Diggersby, and Skarmory

It's a safe bet that you're going to see at least ONE of these Pokemon at least once every other match (probably more so), so using Landorus to force something out is extremely easy to do. And no other Pokemon can wreck predicted switchins as easily and reliably as Landorus- if the Lando user knows what faster check you're going to switch in, it can almost always OHKO it. Not even Kyurem B can do that.

It's this sort of "play by gut instinct" mentality that's become all too common in the OU tier right now. If the ONLY way to handle a Pokemon is to either sacrifice something or bank on gut instinct (which in practice is little better than luck) to switch around it, then it inherently removes strategy and higher level thinking present in a meta. It should take some actual EFFORT to sweep with something like Lando- if it required several layers of hazards and certain common checks to be completely removed before it could start OHKOing things left and right, I could understand it being balanced, but as it stands it requires zero team support or strategic thinking to use properly and is forcing people to run way more flimsy attackers with Ice type moves than they surely would have otherwise.

 

[Ranger Mike]

Ok regarding an aegi suspect, is anyone forgetting that this thing made mandibuzz ou?(well also defognbut whatever) I think that makes a statement as to the overcentralizingness of aegislash. Even with that it can bypass mandibuzz with sub toxic which is a really good set. Aegislash is kind of like genesect in the fact that each set has counters but the sheer versatility is what really makes it a potential suspect.

 

[Subject 18]

This thread is getting out of hand. Chou only needed this to get results on his survey and not to give people an open forum to discuss potential bans. There will be a time and place for topics like this but this isn't one of them. I'm locking this thread because it has served its purpose and we have forums specific rules against discussing bans.

If you would like to discuss for or against the potential bans of the mentioned Pokemon, you are free to pm the OU mods, or the OU council.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Thanks Subject 18,

Probably should have just locked it from the beginning, but I kind of wanted to see what kind of feedback we'd get. Thanks for your participation everyone-- please continue to fill out the survey.

@ Charizard Clause discussion-- considering a "shared info" clause is nothing new. In fact, the ability of players to share information as they play was the "argument" behind implementation of "exact damage %'s" not going against game mechanics. A clause like the one suggested is definitely something considerable, and the simulator OU ladder specifically simulates "Game conditions under in-game mechanics + Smogon OU regulations", so no problem there either. It's not an issue of philosophical compatibility, but only a question of need to improve the game.

Looking forward to more survey responses,

Chou

 

[Chou Toshio]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your participation. Participation started to dwindle off, and I got 500 completed responses (exactly) so I decided to close the survey; we've got good representation, a lot of data, and pretty much unmoving results as it is. I will be doing a brief analysis, and reporting the findings and data to the council shortly.

Again, thanks to everyone who participated.

Chou