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.
In regards on the topic of Terastallization, the numbers are pretty similar from the last results from December. It seems we had more in-depth information from back then, than we do right now. I'm curious to see the results on how the qualified playerbase voted, as well as the people who voted for action on Tera to be restricted or outright ban. So hopefully we get those in the future.
I think action needs to be taken against Kingambit. I do think it'll be beneficial if we ban it to Ubers. Just want to see how we go about it.
Edit: I made a slight misinterpretation when it came to acting on Tera. Obviously the results for restrictions or outright ban isn't given yet. Hey mistakes happens, but as stated before, the numbers are similar to last time. So we'll see where this goes.
I feel there are like 6 to 10 threats that are almost broken and only held back, cause they somewhat also check each other.
Those are dragapult, kingambit, iron valiant, baxcalibur, gholdengo and maybe enamourus, sneasler, zamazenta
I think there are 2 options moving forward:
either suspect all of the mentionen pokemon in a relative short amount of time.
or do a tera preview suspect to reduce the brokenness of the above mentionend mons aswell as suspect test giratina-a to have more bulk in the meta.
Sneasler is a symptom not a cause. It's strength is more meta-related than actual strength. It's completely wallable (dondonzo, clodsire, gholdego for non-tera positive sets, defensive zapdos, I could go on), but walls (and especially true stall) are few and far between due to how offensively favored this meta is. It's typing is offensively a goldmine, defensively a trainwreck, but tera is a strap on toting bitch. IMO it's only as stupid strong as it its because unburden gives it a colossal advantage in offense vs offense match ups. And tera being tera. Which are both symptoms of larger problems. If somehow the meta became more balance/stall oriented, I think sneasler's stock naturally drops a lot.
It reminds me a lot of infernape back in gen 4. While obviously it's a lot better because power creep has gone no where but up since infernape released, but it shares many of the same qualities and problems infernape did back when it was an OU mon. It's strong, but not quite strong enough to get through most walls. Defensively a stiff breeze knocks it over. It just has a number of properties that make it hose other offensive mons or balance mons (high quality coverage, priority or extreme speed tiers, set up moves, good number of sets). Chip damage does wonders against most of it's sets.
I'm curious to see the results on how the qualified playerbase voted, as well as the people who voted for action on Tera to be restricted or outright ban. So hopefully we get those in the future.
IIRC the Tera vote was just for whether or not action should be taken at all, not what action people were hoping for.
Edit: Oh and it just says what percentage of each voted. It was 62.3% of the whole playerbase and 64.7% of the qualified playerbase that voted for action on Tera.
Of the 62% of people who voted for action on Terastallization, I'd be interested in seeing how many of them would favour restrictions over an outright ban.
I've seen a few posts now of people claiming only a full ban will help, but I don't think it's likely that the majority of people want that - or even the majority of that 62%, for that matter.
I voted no action, but I wouldn't be opposed to some type of restriction, particularly Tera Preview, which if I was a better player I'd vote in favour of. However I'm strongly opposed to an outright ban on it.
I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those 62% favor a restriction prior to a ban. Because at the end of the day, it's busted, but it's generation mechanic and fixing it would be generally preferable to removing it, and it's always easier to get support for a small step than a big one.
I am just also sure that there's no way to fix it without getting into the deep dark realm of highly complex bans, and it's going to end up banned eventually (even if that ban comes in the post-generation like what had to happen in B/W). I'm fairly sure the minimum buy in for a suitably nerf tera is 'Tera Preview + Tera Blast ban', and I'm not even sure that's enough to fix it. You still might have to throw a 'no double STAB tera allowed' on top, and all of that still might not be enough (but at least it puts most of the onus on more individual mons to be banned rather than the mechanic).
An interesting alternate way of interpreting the data is to, rather than take the average score for every pokemon, look at how many percent of voters votes a 4 or a 5 for a pokemon. I consider these to be the answer options that would be ok with a suspect test for the mon, whereas 3 and below are neutral or opposed.
Rather than getting an average score of how the playerbase in general feels about a pokemon, this shows what pokemon/mechanics have the most support for tiering action. That list would be as follows:
I can't make this for the qualified playerbase as Finch only posted the screenshots for the general answers, though I would be quite interested in seeing how that list would compare to the general one.
I feel there are like 6 to 10 threats that are almost broken and only held back, cause they somewhat also check each other.
Those are dragapult, kingambit, iron valiant, baxcalibur, gholdengo and maybe enamourus, sneasler, zamazenta
I think there are 2 options moving forward:
either suspect all of the mentionen pokemon in a relative short amount of time.
or do a tera preview suspect to reduce the brokenness of the above mentionend mons aswell as suspect test giratina-a to have more bulk in the meta.
An interesting alternate way of interpreting the data is to, rather than take the average score for every pokemon, look at how many percent of voters votes a 4 or a 5 for a pokemon. I consider these to be the answer options that would be ok with a suspect test for the mon, whereas 3 and below are neutral or opposed.
Rather than getting an average score of how the playerbase in general feels about a pokemon, this shows what pokemon/mechanics have the most support for tiering action. That list would be as follows:
I can't make this for the qualified playerbase as Finch only posted the screenshots for the general answers, though I would be quite interested in seeing how that list would compare to the general one.
To be honest, the SV OU Discussion doesn't really have the most clear concise posts and is usually not heavily filtered for quality posts. A Tera Tiering Discussion thread can look like this where there many excellent reasons for anti-tera and pro tera (where readers can draw points / help make a decision). We need to bring back this type of thread and also just present points on why a re-suspect will be valid decision even after having the first one back in December.
I just think it's a waste of time to have another thread before the suspect thread. The test is probably happening anyway and it would make more sense to have the discussion in the suspect thread.
Sneasler is a symptom not a cause. It's strength is more meta-related than actual strength. It's completely wallable (dondonzo, clodsire, gholdego for non-tera positive sets, defensive zapdos, I could go on), but walls (and especially true stall) are few and far between due to how offensively favored this meta is. It's typing is offensively a goldmine, defensively a trainwreck, but tera is a strap on toting bitch. IMO it's only as stupid strong as it its because unburden gives it a colossal advantage in offense vs offense match ups. And tera being tera. Which are both symptoms of larger problems. If somehow the meta became more balance/stall oriented, I think sneasler's stock naturally drops a lot.
I want to note that Defensive Zapdos wouldn't be as reliable if Sneasler players would stop being bad and run Gunk Shot over Dire Claw.
252 Atk Choice Band Sneasler Gunk Shot vs. 252 HP / 104 Def Zapdos: 298-352 (77.6 - 91.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+2 252 Atk Sneasler Gunk Shot vs. 252 HP / 104 Def Zapdos: 399-469 (103.9 - 122.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO
Gholdengo meanwhile is an issue for STABs but Sneasler has a Coverage move to play with that for this reason I think becomes locked to Fire Punch rather than an option in a Metagame without Tera (so no Ground Blast and Acrobatics nerfed for neutral STAB).
252 Atk Choice Band Sneasler Fire Punch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Gholdengo: 182-216 (48.1 - 57.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after 1 layer of Spikes and Leftovers recovery
+2 252 Atk Sneasler Fire Punch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Gholdengo: 244-288 (64.5 - 76.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after 1 layer of Spikes and Leftovers recovery
Bar the usual fat Unawares, Sneasler is hard to switch into if you assume you're getting hit by the right move or have been chipped. Given the playstyle and that the former only fit on balance/stall teams as is, I can agree with the Metagame favoring Sneasler as a major influence. That said I do think at the moment it's on the lighter side for defensive checks much like Gen 8 Weavile could feel like (albeit without the "progress forcing" option of Knock Off as a main STAB).
I want to note that Defensive Zapdos wouldn't be as reliable if Sneasler players would stop being bad and run Gunk Shot over Dire Claw.
252 Atk Choice Band Sneasler Gunk Shot vs. 252 HP / 104 Def Zapdos: 298-352 (77.6 - 91.6%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+2 252 Atk Sneasler Gunk Shot vs. 252 HP / 104 Def Zapdos: 399-469 (103.9 - 122.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO
Gholdengo meanwhile is an issue for STABs but Sneasler has a Coverage move to play with that for this reason I think becomes locked to Fire Punch rather than an option in a Metagame without Tera (so no Ground Blast and Acrobatics nerfed for neutral STAB).
252 Atk Choice Band Sneasler Fire Punch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Gholdengo: 182-216 (48.1 - 57.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after 1 layer of Spikes and Leftovers recovery
+2 252 Atk Sneasler Fire Punch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Gholdengo: 244-288 (64.5 - 76.1%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after 1 layer of Spikes and Leftovers recovery
Bar the usual fat Unawares, Sneasler is hard to switch into if you assume you're getting hit by the right move or have been chipped. Given the playstyle and that the former only fit on balance/stall teams as is, I can agree with the Metagame favoring Sneasler as a major influence. That said I do think at the moment it's on the lighter side for defensive checks much like Gen 8 Weavile could feel like (albeit without the "progress forcing" option of Knock Off as a main STAB).
Idk, just looks fishy to me, not the votes but reading the votes themselves and translating that to 'what's the next priority'. I'm shocked the council doesn't automatically throw kingambit and garg on a radar and 7-2 vote ban them tomorrow, they've done it to something not on the survey and previous survey to that, with a lower interest.
I just think it's a waste of time to have another thread before the suspect thread. The test is probably happening anyway and it would make more sense to have the discussion in the suspect thread.
I think the ultimate goal is to have a "real" discussion on-going at the same time as the next Thing. If Tera is going to wind up needing more nuance, I could even see them doing a 2-question suspect for "Do you want to try Tera Preview" + "Should we yeet Kingambit until Tera is finished" -- and if something like that occurs, the thread can stay for both halves of the Tera question.
I thought that Gambit was unhealthy because "it would let win to people who plays poorly". For what I have seen, the people that defend Gambit doesn't deny that it is busted, they say that it helps to keep other stuff in check like Gholdengo or Pult, which is a fair concern after seeing how stuff like Valiant become stronger after Volc's ban while nothing else changed much.
Personally I think that the tera numbers were low for what everyone here was saying. 62.4% more than it needs for a suspect but a lot of pro tera players have mentioned they are open to a restriction but not to a full ban so depending on how it gets handled it could end like the previous vote, especially with all those people calling for a ban-do no ban vote instead of giving the option to stuff like tera preview or tera capitan which the only thing that will archive is giving the do no ban side more votes because of what I mentioned early, some players are willing to accept restrictions but not a full ban.
if 62% isn't enought to at least make a suspect/create a separate ladder with tera banned and see sv ou without this mechanic means the council has no intention to do anything about it
they prefer to ban/unban and suspect again over and over and hope the dlc will fix everything, last month the victim was volc, then the dog, gambit is the next and after his suspect the victim will be sneasler
I hate how the modern playerbase is so pro-universal ban on more recent mechanics, especially uncompetitive ones. Serene Grace is an uncompetitive ability, but only Shaymin-Sky was too problematic with it. Other Serene Grace Pokémon like Jirachi and Togekiss are still uncompetitive, but have sufficient counterplay that banning the entire ability was not needed. When Swagger was a problem on multiple Pokémon, only the move was banned. Confusion as a whole wasn't even though it is still uncompetitive, especially when it had a 50% proc chance. This kind of tiering has been forgotten in recent years. There are different severities of uncompetitiveness, and all forms of RNG have some sort of counterplay (some more than others), whether it be in-game and when teambuilding. Viable RNG =/= no counterplay RNG. Only the extreme ones should be banned, and they should be addressed individually first before considering a full mechanic ban.
I also noticed that people are so biased when defending "traditional hax" (Scald, Flame Body, Serene Grace, paralysis, etc.) because they have been an accepted part of the metagame for a long time. Meanwhile, the more recent uncompetitive elements (which not only includes new RNG mechanics like Dire Claw, but also old ones that have started seeing minor relevancy in recent years like Quick Claw and King's Rock) aren't held to the same standards. Instead of starting with a base definition on what makes an RNG element uncompetitive enough to be banned, they are just observing qualities that "traditional hax" and Quick Claw have and using Quick Claw's unique attributes as grounds to ban the item while conveniently ignoring or making excuses for the advantages and unfairness of "traditional hax". Their stance on what makes certain RNG elements "ok" are based on elements that have already been accepted in the metagame, and they aren't even doing that consistent a job at it. This kind of reasoning also makes their standards more prone to bias. What's worse is that some of these people have probably never used or battled against Quick Claw because some of their arguments are straight up incorrect like saying Quick Claw has no counterplay or is free RNG, which have been debunked by some people here only for those arguments to be dismissed or downplayed by some.
If I switch Tapu Bulu or any physical Grass-type into a Water-type and get burned, it's my fault for risking the burn. Special attackers have Surf while physical attackers have Liquidation, and both are about as relevantly distributed as Scald. But sure keep pretending Scald has "competitive" value when Alomomola and Quagsire use Scald as their STAB over Liquidation.
If I use Kartana or Kingambit and get statused by Static or Flame Body, it's my fault for clicking a contact move. This scenario is even worse than the Scald one because at least you can predict turns your opponent doesn't Scald. You can't just tell Pokémon like Kartana to not click a contact move. How exactly did some people justify this? "Static and Flame Body only procs on certain attacks unlike Quick Claw." Yes because I totally use Zapdos to check special attackers and it's totally fair for Kartana to run Flash Cannon to avoid Static...
Scald and friends can be played around the same way Quick Claw can. If people can tell me to not use Tapu Bulu as my only Water-type check or to be careful around Zapdos when using Kartana, then I can tell them to stop using Weavile to revenge kill a low HP Melmetal without scouting its item or dropping it to Ice Shard range. You still have other options like Lando-T, Corviknight, Moltres, Zapdos as other options if you don't want to risk the RNG. People have discussed the counterplays/opportunity costs of Quick Claw in this thread a bunch, and whether you dismiss it or not, those counterplays/opportunity costs are as relevant as Scald or Static's counterplays/opportunity costs/method of activations.
You can't be pro-Scald and anti-Quick Claw with these arguments. Either learn to play and stop whining about Quick Claw, whine about Scald and Quick Claw, or find good arguments that isolate Quick Claw as a more extreme form of uncompetitive. The Scald vs Quick Claw conversation basically goes like this:
"Scald has X qualities. You can counter Scald with water immunities or Pokémon that don't really care about burns. You so have to use a moveslot and a turn for Scald. Quick Claw doesn't have those since every turn you move is affected by Quick Claw."
"But Quick Claw has Y qualities. It takes up an item slot, so they sacrifice a boosting or defensive item. A Quick Claw proc is also sometimes inconsequential when it activates in a switch, priority, or slower Pokémon. In fact, tanky Pokémon are essentially fighting itemless Pokémon since they don't care about speed. Quick Claw also has to activate multiple times to get its worth since a lot of the time it activates on useless turns, unlike Scald where it only needs to activate once for permanent impact. It can also be knocked off.
"X is acceptable because I said so, unlike Y which I don't find sufficient enough. RNG burns are acceptable hax because burns are an accepted part of the meta, but RNG priority is not despite priority being just as accepted as burns because reasons. Quick Claw also has no relevant metagame impact so nothing of value would be lost."
Compare this to Swagger arguments back in the day:
"Swagger is commonly paired with Prankster, T-Wave, and Sub to maximize RNG and disregard speed, which also allows the user to invest more in bulk. Most relevant Swagger users also have Foul Play to avoid being too passive. Swagger is especially punishing for special attackers as they don't benefit from the attack boost and essentially experience a 45% chance of hitting themselves the moment they are sent out against Prankster Swagger users. And if the 50% confusion chance wasn't enough, parafusion has a 62.5% chance of no action. Counterplay is limited because T-Wave has few immunities and is a permanent status condition, while confusion has even less immunities despite being temporary. And thanks to Prankster, whatever switches in just gets statused again. Even if RNG doesn't go your way, you still have a paralyzes/confused opponent. All this for a not so high opportunity cost since T-Wave, Swagger, and Foul Play are all good moves".
This is how you argue for a non-Pokémon ban, even on uncompetitive elements. Sleep in gen 5 or Shaymin-Sky vs. Serene Grace are also good examples. Marshadow can viably use Swagger in gen 7, but people aren't pointing fingers at Swagger. Even anti-Scalders in gens 5 and 6 had better arguments than most recent anti-Quick Claw posts. Bring back this form of tiering.
If Sand Attack starts seeing legitimate and viable 1% use in modern times, there is a very good chance for some to beg for a Sand Attack ban by nitpicking its unique qualities before resorting to "it's a purely luck-based strategy that has no relevant metagame impact" arguments instead of playing around it (assuming they even see it). Thank goodness Jirachi and Togekiss were released in earlier generations because if they were released now, they won't have their status as "accepted parts of the metagame we learned to play around" and recency bias would very likely force Serene Grace to banned as a whole for the sins of Shaymin-Sky.
The only thing that would convince me of a Quick Claw ban without banning other luck-based elements is if Quick Claw alone has shown itself to be too RNG-based, all-or-nothing, uncounterable, or has a massively skewerd risk/reward factor. And while I still disagree with a Quick Claw ban, Delibird Heart's Quick Claw spam team is enough for me to at the very least accept the decision if Quick Claw gets banned. The consequence of this RNG isn't as extreme or biased towards one side and can still be played around (which is why I disagree with the Quick Claw ban), but it does make up for it by having an absurd amount of presence compared to other forms of RNG. I'm just glad that someone was innovative enough with Quick Claw unlike last generation where there was barely experimentation or even encounters with the item. I did use Quick Claw last generation on walls like Ferrothorn and Toxapex to punish fast HDB VoltTurn users and never found it to be too extreme, but the thought of mass spamming it to bulky attackers apart from Melmetal or Slowbro-G never crossed my mind.
- Unless there is a ban on luck items or flinching, Cloyster deserves the Skymin treatment. Preserve King's Rock and Serene Grace; ban the abusers. Both are fast and hit hard. Cloyster is stronger but requires set up and is very all-or-nothing. Skymin has the privilege of switching out and still being useful but doesn't sweep past teams as easily.
- While I disagree with the Bright Powder ban, it falls under Evasion Clause. If there is a "luck item ban" or "priority ban", then go ahead and ban Quick Claw for consistency (along with other mechanics that false under those bans).
- While I disagree with a complete luck item ban, I understand why it might get implemented and won't complain about it. Having explicitly written premises that are simple (ex. evasion ban, OHKO ban, flinch ban, secondary effect ban) lessens discussions and arguments on technicalities and exceptions (ex. OHKO types, what flinch chance and speed tiers are acceptable for flinching). Sure there may be collateral damage on weaker forms of the mechanic, but it's a worthy price to pay to avoid spending pages discussing what percent or type of luck is ok. Still though, I think that a luck item ban at this stage when no luck item has shown to be too extreme (apart from King's Rock Cloyster) is too whiney, but at least it's simple and consistent.
- I also hate the "no relevant competitive impact" argument. It's lazy and can be applied to so many elements, luck-based or not. Rather than using intrinsic properties that a mechanic has (base power, type, RNG, how the mechanic works, strengths and weaknesses), they are using irrelevant elemements like popularity/viability to determine whether something should stay or go. Parafusion had relevant metagame impact in gen 6. Imagine using that as ab argument for Swagger to stay. It's supposed to be the viability of counters that determines whether something should be banned.
- I know that my posts uses Scald a lot despite Scald being non-existent in the metagame and discussion on it has died a couple pages ago. But I started writing this when Scald was being compared to Quick Claw and since I'm busy irl and dyslexic, this post got very delayed. If only OU is less active I could actually keep up with the discussions. Anyway, my point still stands since you can replace Scald with other accepted forms of RNG.
- While there has been a lot of messy arguments on Quick Claw vs. other traditional RNG elements, I have to commend Alternator's consistent stance on RNG. Roller K's and DiscoDucky's posts on luck items are also great as they show the pros and cons of both sides. Roller K's post can make use of simple deductive reasoning (luck items are uncompetitive and deserve to be banned, x is a luck item, x should be banned) to make tiering simpler at the cost of more collateral damage. DiscoDucky takes a more individualistic approach with the "innocent until proven guilty" stance which allows for more variety at the cost of more subjectivity and debate on what constitutes "extreme RNG". There is nothing wrong with differing opinions. Supporting your opinions with FACTS and having CONSISTENCY in your views is more important. Probably missed acknowledging a few good posts but reading this thread is a chore with how much activity there is.
I hate how the modern playerbase is so pro-universal ban on more recent mechanics, especially uncompetitive ones. Serene Grace is an uncompetitive ability, but only Shaymin-Sky was too problematic with it. Other Serene Grace Pokémon like Jirachi and Togekiss are still uncompetitive, but have sufficient counterplay that banning the entire ability was not needed. When Swagger was a problem on multiple Pokémon, only the move was banned. Confusion as a whole wasn't even though it is still uncompetitive, especially when it had a 50% proc chance. This kind of tiering has been forgotten in recent years. There are different severities of uncompetitiveness, and all forms of RNG have some sort of counterplay (some more than others), whether it be in-game and when teambuilding. Viable RNG =/= no counterplay RNG. Only the extreme ones should be banned, and they should be addressed individually first before considering a full mechanic ban.
I also noticed that people are so biased when defending "traditional hax" (Scald, Flame Body, Serene Grace, paralysis, etc.) because they have been an accepted part of the metagame for a long time. Meanwhile, the more recent uncompetitive elements (which not only includes new RNG mechanics like Dire Claw, but also old ones that have started seeing minor relevancy in recent years like Quick Claw and King's Rock) aren't held to the same standards. Instead of starting with a base definition on what makes an RNG element uncompetitive enough to be banned, they are just observing qualities that "traditional hax" and Quick Claw have and using Quick Claw's unique attributes as grounds to ban the item while conveniently ignoring or making excuses for the advantages and unfairness of "traditional hax". Their stance on what makes certain RNG elements "ok" are based on elements that have already been accepted in the metagame, and they aren't even doing that consistent a job at it. This kind of reasoning also makes their standards more prone to bias. What's worse is that some of these people have probably never used or battled against Quick Claw because some of their arguments are straight up incorrect like saying Quick Claw has no counterplay or is free RNG, which have been debunked by some people here only for those arguments to be dismissed or downplayed by some.
If I switch Tapu Bulu or any physical Grass-type into a Water-type and get burned, it's my fault for risking the burn. Special attackers have Surf while physical attackers have Liquidation, and both are about as relevantly distributed as Scald. But sure keep pretending Scald has "competitive" value when Alomomola and Quagsire use Scald as their STAB over Liquidation.
If I use Kartana or Kingambit and get statused by Static or Flame Body, it's my fault for clicking a contact move. This scenario is even worse than the Scald one because at least you can predict turns your opponent doesn't Scald. You can't just tell Pokémon like Kartana to not click a contact move. How exactly did some people justify this? "Static and Flame Body only procs on certain attacks unlike Quick Claw." Yes because I totally use Zapdos to check special attackers and it's totally fair for Kartana to run Flash Cannon to avoid Static...
Scald and friends can be played around the same way Quick Claw can. If people can tell me to not use Tapu Bulu as my only Water-type check or to be careful around Zapdos when using Kartana, then I can tell them to stop using Weavile to revenge kill a low HP Melmetal without scouting its item or dropping it to Ice Shard range. You still have other options like Lando-T, Corviknight, Moltres, Zapdos as other options if you don't want to risk the RNG. People have discussed the counterplays/opportunity costs of Quick Claw in this thread a bunch, and whether you dismiss it or not, those counterplays/opportunity costs are as relevant as Scald or Static's counterplays/opportunity costs/method of activations.
You can't be pro-Scald and anti-Quick Claw with these arguments. Either learn to play and stop whining about Quick Claw, whine about Scald and Quick Claw, or find good arguments that isolate Quick Claw as a more extreme form of uncompetitive. The Scald vs Quick Claw conversation basically goes like this:
"Scald has X qualities. You can counter Scald with water immunities or Pokémon that don't really care about burns. You so have to use a moveslot and a turn for Scald. Quick Claw doesn't have those since every turn you move is affected by Quick Claw."
"But Quick Claw has Y qualities. It takes up an item slot, so they sacrifice a boosting or defensive item. A Quick Claw proc is also sometimes inconsequential when it activates in a switch, priority, or slower Pokémon. In fact, tanky Pokémon are essentially fighting itemless Pokémon since they don't care about speed. Quick Claw also has to activate multiple times to get its worth since a lot of the time it activates on useless turns, unlike Scald where it only needs to activate once for permanent impact. It can also be knocked off.
"X is acceptable because I said so, unlike Y which I don't find sufficient enough. RNG burns are acceptable hax because burns are an accepted part of the meta, but RNG priority is not despite priority being just as accepted as burns because reasons. Quick Claw also has no relevant metagame impact so nothing of value would be lost."
Compare this to Swagger arguments back in the day:
"Swagger is commonly paired with Prankster, T-Wave, and Sub to maximize RNG and disregard speed, which also allows the user to invest more in bulk. Most relevant Swagger users also have Foul Play to avoid being too passive. Swagger is especially punishing for special attackers as they don't benefit from the attack boost and essentially experience a 45% chance of hitting themselves the moment they are sent out against Prankster Swagger users. And if the 50% confusion chance wasn't enough, parafusion has a 62.5% chance of no action. Counterplay is limited because T-Wave has few immunities and is a permanent status condition, while confusion has even less immunities despite being temporary. And thanks to Prankster, whatever switches in just gets statused again. Even if RNG doesn't go your way, you still have a paralyzes/confused opponent. All this for a not so high opportunity cost since T-Wave, Swagger, and Foul Play are all good moves".
This is how you argue for a non-Pokémon ban, even on uncompetitive elements. Sleep in gen 5 or Shaymin-Sky vs. Serene Grace are also good examples. Marshadow can viably use Swagger in gen 7, but people aren't pointing fingers at Swagger. Even anti-Scalders in gens 5 and 6 had better arguments than most recent anti-Quick Claw posts. Bring back this form of tiering.
If Sand Attack starts seeing legitimate and viable 1% use in modern times, there is a very good chance for some to beg for a Sand Attack ban by nitpicking its unique qualities before resorting to "it's a purely luck-based strategy that has no relevant metagame impact" arguments instead of playing around it (assuming they even see it). Thank goodness Jirachi and Togekiss were released in earlier generations because if they were released now, they won't have their status as "accepted parts of the metagame we learned to play around" and recency bias would very likely force Serene Grace to banned as a whole for the sins of Shaymin-Sky.
The only thing that would convince me of a Quick Claw ban without banning other luck-based elements is if Quick Claw alone has shown itself to be too RNG-based, all-or-nothing, uncounterable, or has a massively skewerd risk/reward factor. And while I still disagree with a Quick Claw ban, Delibird Heart's Quick Claw spam team is enough for me to at the very least accept the decision if Quick Claw gets banned. The consequence of this RNG isn't as extreme or biased towards one side and can still be played around (which is why I disagree with the Quick Claw ban), but it does make up for it by having an absurd amount of presence compared to other forms of RNG. I'm just glad that someone was innovative enough with Quick Claw unlike last generation where there was barely experimentation or even encounters with the item. I did use Quick Claw last generation on walls like Ferrothorn and Toxapex to punish fast HDB VoltTurn users and never found it to be too extreme, but the thought of mass spamming it to bulky attackers apart from Melmetal or Slowbro-G never crossed my mind.
- Unless there is a ban on luck items or flinching, Cloyster deserves the Skymin treatment. Preserve King's Rock and Serene Grace; ban the abusers. Both are fast and hit hard. Cloyster is stronger but requires set up and is very all-or-nothing. Skymin has the privilege of switching out and still being useful but doesn't sweep past teams as easily.
- While I disagree with the Bright Powder ban, it falls under Evasion Clause. If there is a "luck item ban" or "priority ban", then go ahead and ban Quick Claw for consistency (along with other mechanics that false under those bans).
- While I disagree with a complete luck item ban, I understand why it might get implemented and won't complain about it. Having explicitly written premises that are simple (ex. evasion ban, OHKO ban, flinch ban, secondary effect ban) lessens discussions and arguments on technicalities and exceptions (ex. OHKO types, what flinch chance and speed tiers are acceptable for flinching). Sure there may be collateral damage on weaker forms of the mechanic, but it's a worthy price to pay to avoid spending pages discussing what percent or type of luck is ok. Still though, I think that a luck item ban at this stage when no luck item has shown to be too extreme (apart from King's Rock Cloyster) is too whiney, but at least it's simple and consistent.
- I also hate the "no relevant competitive impact" argument. It's lazy and can be applied to so many elements, luck-based or not. Rather than using intrinsic properties that a mechanic has (base power, type, RNG, how the mechanic works, strengths and weaknesses), they are using irrelevant elemements like popularity/viability to determine whether something should stay or go. Parafusion had relevant metagame impact in gen 6. Imagine using that as ab argument for Swagger to stay. It's supposed to be the viability of counters that determines whether something should be banned.
- I know that my posts uses Scald a lot despite Scald being non-existent in the metagame and discussion on it has died a couple pages ago. But I started writing this when Scald was being compared to Quick Claw and since I'm busy irl and dyslexic, this post got very delayed. If only OU is less active I could actually keep up with the discussions. Anyway, my point still stands since you can replace Scald with other accepted forms of RNG.
- While there has been a lot of messy arguments on Quick Claw vs. other traditional RNG elements, I have to commend Alternator's consistent stance on RNG. Roller K's and DiscoDucky's posts on luck items are also great as they show the pros and cons of both sides. Roller K's post can make use of simple deductive reasoning (luck items are uncompetitive and deserve to be banned, x is a luck item, x should be banned) to make tiering simpler at the cost of more collateral damage. DiscoDucky takes a more individualistic approach with the "innocent until proven guilty" stance which allows for more variety at the cost of more subjectivity and debate on what constitutes "extreme RNG". There is nothing wrong with differing opinions. Supporting your opinions with FACTS and having CONSISTENCY in your views is more important. Probably missed acknowledging a few good posts but reading this thread is a chore with how much activity there is.
Part of my problem with Quick Claw is that we should be comparing to it to another item that does the same thing; Custap Berry. Both allow you to move first in your priority bracket, but there are two fundamental differences between them. Custap Berry only works when your HP is low, and activates only once before it is permanently consumed (barring Recycle). Quick Claw, however, is not a guaranteed usage, and is not a one-time use item. It's a constant, passive, binary item -- either it activates, or it doesn't, on any given turn.
Quick Claw by itself feels wholly uncompetitive due to the fact that it completely ignores speed tiers in favor of priority tiers. It gives you a free +1, so for your opponent to smack you before you smack them, they need to do one of three things;
1. Be faster than you, and use a priority move of the same level (Quick Attack, Aqua Jet, Prankster boosted moves, etc.),
2. Use a move of HIGHER priority (Sucker Punch, Extreme Speed, etc.),
3. Use their own Quick Claw/Custap Berry and be faster than you.
The only counterplay to Quick Claw's passive threat is out-prioritying it (that feels wrong to say), or have Knock Off on every team with maybe multiple Pokemon using it (if QC spam becomes commonplace.) QC, in Gen 9, only really synergizes with Glowbro and Quick Draw -- which in and of itself is a total gimmick.
With Custap Berry, you don't arbitrarily have a chance every turn to ignore speed tiers. The counterplay is far simpler than Quick Claw's -- Knock stops it like with Quick Claw, Bug Bite, Inferno, and having better priority over Custap users. But who's really using Custap these days? I haven't really seen it since Gen 5, and it was pretty much only Skarm using it.
Scald vs Quick Claw is also a very fallable argument overall. With Scald, the burn is built-in and you can't really stop the burn from happening unless you have Water Veil or switch in a Fire type. But who in their right mind is sending a Fire into a Water? On top of this, Scald loses to Water Absorb and Storm Drain. Quick Claw doesn't have any abilities to counter it, not even Trick Room stops it. (Though Magic Room does, but literally NO ONE uses Magic Room.) Safeguard is also a counter to Scald burns, as it covers your whole team.
It's all a circular argument all around and I know my points aren't very good compared to others', but I'm still on the side of pro-QC banning. Just like with Evasion clause, RNG is a strict mistress. It's bad enough to lose to missing moves/getting haxxed, we don't really need more cheese running around with QC and KR.
Part of my problem with Quick Claw is that we should be comparing to it to another item that does the same thing; Custap Berry. Both allow you to move first in your priority bracket, but there are two fundamental differences between them. Custap Berry only works when your HP is low, and activates only once before it is permanently consumed (barring Recycle). Quick Claw, however, is not a guaranteed usage, and is not a one-time use item. It's a constant, passive, binary item -- either it activates, or it doesn't, on any given turn.
Quick Claw by itself feels wholly uncompetitive due to the fact that it completely ignores speed tiers in favor of priority tiers. It gives you a free +1, so for your opponent to smack you before you smack them, they need to do one of three things;
1. Be faster than you, and use a priority move of the same level (Quick Attack, Aqua Jet, Prankster boosted moves, etc.),
2. Use a move of HIGHER priority (Sucker Punch, Extreme Speed, etc.),
3. Use their own Quick Claw/Custap Berry and be faster than you.
The only counterplay to Quick Claw's passive threat is out-prioritying it (that feels wrong to say), or have Knock Off on every team with maybe multiple Pokemon using it (if QC spam becomes commonplace.) QC, in Gen 9, only really synergizes with Glowbro and Quick Draw -- which in and of itself is a total gimmick.
With Custap Berry, you don't arbitrarily have a chance every turn to ignore speed tiers. The counterplay is far simpler than Quick Claw's -- Knock stops it like with Quick Claw, Bug Bite, Inferno, and having better priority over Custap users. But who's really using Custap these days? I haven't really seen it since Gen 5, and it was pretty much only Skarm using it.
Scald vs Quick Claw is also a very fallable argument overall. With Scald, the burn is built-in and you can't really stop the burn from happening unless you have Water Veil or switch in a Fire type. But who in their right mind is sending a Fire into a Water? On top of this, Scald loses to Water Absorb and Storm Drain. Quick Claw doesn't have any abilities to counter it, not even Trick Room stops it. (Though Magic Room does, but literally NO ONE uses Magic Room.) Safeguard is also a counter to Scald burns, as it covers your whole team.
It's all a circular argument all around and I know my points aren't very good compared to others', but I'm still on the side of pro-QC banning. Just like with Evasion clause, RNG is a strict mistress. It's bad enough to lose to missing moves/getting haxxed, we don't really need more cheese running around with QC and KR.
That is not how Quick Claw works. You can think of it as a +0.5 priority chance - Dragapult with Quick Claw goes after Trapinch with Quick Attack, but before anything else not using a priority move (except for a faster Quick Claw user, which would mean Regieleki).
That is not how Quick Claw works. You can think of it as a +0.5 priority chance - Dragapult with Quick Claw goes after Trapinch with Quick Attack, but before anything else not using a priority move (except for a faster Quick Claw user, which would mean Regieleki).
Is that how it works? Here I believed it was a raw +1 priority. It's not listed within the same priority bracket system as moves over on Bulbapedia, but I'm still keeping my stance on QC should be axed. I wonder if QC is blocked by Armor Tail and Psy Terrain, now that I think about it.
