swagger ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
i'm wondering what the purpose of the swagger ban carrying over from gen6 is?

it was already a contentious ban originally, and since then thunder wave has been nerfed which effectively hampers the legitimacy of swagplay strats. it just seems like a very unnecessary clause in our metagame, and it should be removed

pls fix
 

shrang

Unlimited power
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#4
Tbh I never thought the problem with Swagger lay with actual Swagplay strats, more of the fact that way too many dangerous things like GeoXern and other sweepers got it. It's a bit like how NP Thundurus back in BW could use priority Thunder Wave to impose a 25% chance of disabling your check. Standard kind of matchup - +2/+2/+2 GeoXern vs SpD Donner, you're about to Roar with Groudon with you get Swaggered, and 33% chance you hit yourself and then Xern kills you or something. Hell you can stick Swagger on almost any fun sweeper like Mega Mence and stuff. Swagplay itself was actually pretty easy to play around tbh.
 
#5
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smart-strategy-swagger-1-peak.3508194/

the impetus for the ban were teams like these which abused swagplay with a ditto in the back, not offensive sweepers using the move. since xy, both aspects of swagplay have been nerfed. there is a huge opportunity cost behind offensive sweepers trying to luck their way through via swagger, and most of the time a mere 10.8% (assuming swagger even hits!) chance to get an extra attack vs an opposing pokemon is not worth it.

ubers lauds itself on banning the least amount of things, yet it maintains a clause which has almost no real backing given transgenerational mechanics changes. ou gave up the clause this gen as well. what gives?
 
Last edited:

hyw

Banned deucer.
#6
paradigm shifts thatve undermined the necessity of the swagger clause since being instilled upon ubers
- the major swagplay abuser in keys is no longer able to touch dark types
- twave down to 90% acc
- para induced spe dec up to half of original
- inc in viability of ground types

those thatve fortified said necessity
- no more mdiancie

imo ubers as a tier shud feel an even greater moral imperative to perpetually scrutinize its set of stipulations for combat than ou so when i first caught wind of them kicking this clause to the curb as an ubers main my immediate reaction was introspection

as can be observed in the severe backlash against the writer of the rmt dice posted + lances take on abusing this tech iirc unlike stag where sound reason and sober rationality prevailed over a bandwagon instigated by auth figures imo its undeniable that the banishment of swag from the tier way back when had been catalyzed by a surge of the collective popular opinion wherein swag itself had been villified

which isnt to say i hadnt been in concurrence w the clause within the time and context during its manifestation but ye just wanted to voice that im a strong proponent of what dice is bringing up here
 

shrang

Unlimited power
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#7
I'm aware the main reason why people were so annoyed at Swagger was at Swagplay itself, but personally I think (and definitely now), is the ability for sweepers to abuse this move has greater potential. A 33% chance to fuck over a check is huge. With the mechanics changing and Klefki being worthless now definitely makes Swagplay much less of a threat, but the ability to hax over your opponent with a sweeper that has very few checks is still massive. I'm not entirely sure if this is something that's too much for Ubers or not, it just needs to be considered imo.
 
#8
33% is such a deceiving number. it seems so ~ominous~ but fails to take into account.. actual pokemon gameplay?

in order for any set up sweeper to gain one net turn, you need to have gotten 2 turns of confusion as most checks severely weaken or neuter set up sweepers. that is a sub 10% chance. or, on the off chance the opposing sweeper doesn't confuse that turn and also doesn't kill your sweeper, you've still gotten marginal gains because you probably could have just attacked and gained more progress!

this just seems to be a very second-rate point

swagger is definitely not a ban-worthy move, and that's why i believe this clause is redundant & antithetical to ubers policy.
 
#9
No I definitely agree with this. Swagger ban shouldn't carry over.

Having a higher threshold than OU in this case is silly as well. I've been for unbanning since the start of this gen fwiw and I brought it up internally a few times but things got in our way with SleepTrap and Baton Pass. I also recall the other mods being against this so they have to defend it.

Fireburn your take?
 

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Team Rater Alumnus
Moderator
#10
Banning philosophy is a balance between being inclusive of game elements and disposing of ones that lower comp edge. Previous posts that acknowledge the lack of legitimate use therefore say that there is no collateral associated with having Swagger banned. So if the move in question, a high risk moderate reward strat which forces RNG down your opponent's throat, has no collateral associated with its ban, why shouldn't it be banned? Increase the number of options for people to force RNG while introducing no new legitimate gameplay elements... that's a poor scenario from a tiering perspective.

Moving on from the thesis of prior posts - people may or may not understand that even with the change in mechs that occurred from ORAS to SM, Swagger will be used. I see at least two Pokemon consistently running Swagger in SM assuming this is unbaned, and the most reasonable conclusion for these cases is that it's not good for comp edge (can discuss more if people really want to talk about this). All other use is unlikely to take place in a serious setting and / or will be regarded as cheese strat. In my opinion, any reduction in collateral to be gained by a Swagger unban simply isn't worth the cost of a notoriously RNG dependent moved being reintroduced. Some other players may favor the inclusivity.

tl;dr this thread exists because dice wants to use Swagger Marshadow
 
#11
Swagger Marshadow *-*

On a more serious note, I highly agree with Minority here.
What does Swagger bring to ubers outside of marshadow which is legit altho with some confuhaxx it will possibly sweep any prepared teams.
The answer is nothing healthy in my opinion, pokemons like salamence or GeoXern may use this move and if you got lucky a couple of time they can just kill every of their supposed check (actually sub/swagger + boosting move xern/salamence could easily beat everything).
In the end swagger would not improve the tier in a competitive way but it'd become a coinflip tier i guess.

I'd also add that the move is similar to Thunder-Wave in some ways, but unlike thunder-wave which got immune mon as ground type (ok magic bounce and own tempo are a thing but how would you "swagger check" a swagger xerneas with a magic bouncer altho it OHKOes it at +2) swagger doesn't have any reliable counter outside of switching which just means another turn to set up (**cough** substitute **cough**). Finally the main difference between those 2 moves is that twave is only learnt by a few mon whereas swagger is basically learnt by near everything.

I'd against a swagger unban as it would only make the tier worse.


(Sorry for my probably awful english, im in a bus and im somewhat tired aswell)
 

hyw

Banned deucer.
#12
Banning philosophy is a balance between being inclusive of game elements and disposing of ones that lower comp edge. Previous posts that acknowledge the lack of legitimate use therefore say that there is no collateral associated with having Swagger banned. So if the move in question, a high risk moderate reward strat which forces RNG down your opponent's throat, has no collateral associated with its ban, why shouldn't it be banned? Increase the number of options for people to force RNG while introducing no new legitimate gameplay elements... that's a poor scenario from a tiering perspective.

Moving on from the thesis of prior posts - people may or may not understand that even with the change in mechs that occurred from ORAS to SM, Swagger will be used. I see at least two Pokemon consistently running Swagger in SM assuming this is unbaned, and the most reasonable conclusion for these cases is that it's not good for comp edge (can discuss more if people really want to talk about this). All other use is unlikely to take place in a serious setting and / or will be regarded as cheese strat. In my opinion, any reduction in collateral to be gained by a Swagger unban simply isn't worth the cost of a notoriously RNG dependent moved being reintroduced. Some other players may favor the inclusivity.

tl;dr this thread exists because dice wants to use Swagger Marshadow
ik that u probs dont mean do this but

u r hurting ubers

regardless of whether the outcome that u propose turns out healthier for the meta i rly think that that sort of superior and dismissive attitude is rly unproductive

just bc ur a mod doesnt mean ur opinion ipso facto carries more weight. i rly honestly think that the way u structured ur response raises red flags to say a hypothetical unbiased third party mediating this discussion bc u v clearly ballerina around the obligation of backing ur statements up w any semblance of proof

not sure if i speak for all pro unban ppl here but the gist of my post effectively has less to do with us as a community trying to figure out thru whatll inevitably culminate in circular arguments abt whether an unban or ban is warranted bc of reasons x y and z etc, the pt i attempted to convey is that the nature and v spirit of ubers is to establish to a greater extent than less a laissez faire environment whereby there exists a relatively higher degree of tolerance for supposedly uncomp strats compared to other tiers bar ag for the meta to ultimately reach an equilibrium w a more unique gradient

imo ubers is a tier in which the priority lies in the playerbase to be given maximum liberty in access to all the tools that the game provides in order to establish said equilibrium whilst maintaining a tolerable degree of competitiveness. if an element within the game renders this unfavorable then the playerbase along w the auth will eliminate this factor to commence a new search for this equilibrium; fail again and the community will rinse and repeat until a derivative is formed upon which everyone can reasonably agree

i guess what i rly wanna say is that its great that u think that u "see at least two Pokemon consistently running Swagger in SM assuming this is unbaned, and the most reasonable conclusion for these cases is that it's not good for comp edge" but actually no one cares because u r indeed clueless as to what the end product of a swag inclusive ubers wud look like as it currently stands. and neither do we, the pro unban side. and therein lies the heart of the matter: not only does the burden of proof lay upon those in favor of any ban, it is but the complete and utter duty of auth figures like u to enact meaningful reform where requisite to maintain the integrity of this tier.

thus i believe that the only reasonable solution to precipitate from this issue that dice has so kindly raised is to quick-unban the swagger clause and then subsequently reinstate a suspect test in proposition of said clause if so neceesary

ps dam u know ur post is quality when konz- expurement drops a like lolz
 
Last edited:

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Team Rater Alumnus
Moderator
#13
ik that u probs dont mean do this but

u r hurting ubers

regardless of whether the outcome that u propose turns out healthier for the meta i rly think that that sort of superior and dismissive attitude is rly unproductive

just bc ur a mod doesnt mean ur opinion ipso facto carries more weight. i rly honestly think that the way u structured ur response raises red flags to say a hypothetical unbiased third party mediating this discussion bc u v clearly ballerina around the obligation of backing ur statements up w any semblance of proof

not sure if i speak for all pro unban ppl here but the gist of my post effectively has less to do with us as a community trying to figure out thru whatll inevitably culminate in circular arguments abt whether an unban or ban is warranted bc of reasons x y and z etc, the pt i attempted to convey is that the nature and v spirit of ubers is to establish to a greater extent than less a laissez faire environment whereby there exists a relatively higher degree of tolerance for supposedly uncomp strats compared to other tiers bar ag for the meta to ultimately reach an equilibrium w a more unique gradient

imo ubers is a tier in which the priority lies in the playerbase to be given maximum liberty in access to all the tools that the game provides in order to establish said equilibrium whilst maintaining a tolerable degree of competitiveness. if an element within the game renders this unfavorable then the playerbase along w the auth will eliminate this factor to commence a new search for this equilibrium; fail again and the community will rinse and repeat until a derivative is formed upon which everyone can reasonably agree

i guess what i rly wanna say is that its great that u think that u "see at least two Pokemon consistently running Swagger in SM assuming this is unbaned, and the most reasonable conclusion for these cases is that it's not good for comp edge" but actually no one cares because u r indeed clueless as to what the end product of a swag inclusive ubers wud look like as it currently stands. and neither do we, the pro unban side. and therein lies the heart of the matter: not only does the burden of proof lay upon those in favor of any ban, it is but the complete and utter duty of auth figures like u to enact meaningful reform where requisite to maintain the integrity of this tier.

thus i believe that the only reasonable solution to precipitate from this issue that dice has so kindly raised is to quick-unban the swagger clause and then subsequently reinstate a suspect test in proposition of said clause if so neceesary

ps dam u know ur post is quality when konz- expurement drops a like lolz
Your post spends its time making baseless personal jabs rather than addressing any thesis I present, and I'd argue if anything, it's those kind of mentalities that are "hurting ubers" - along with people in chat who say misogynistic things, joke about child pornography, or viciously insult other users.


The argument I present basically breaks down to:
- Legality of Swagger introduces RNG into the tier.
- Legality of Swagger marginally increases the pool of viable game elements.
- Of the legitimate uses introduced, they are still largely rooted in RNG.

Issue: Is introducing more RNG, risking comp edge, worth preserving the few legitimate uses of Swagger?

My conclusion was that it's not, and I understand several users' pro-unban viewpoint as being that it is worth it, or should just be a cost associated with the tier and something we just deal with.

This weighting of maximizing options vs. increasing comp edge is the heart of tiering policy, not just for Ubers, but for all competitive tiers. It's the driving force behind most tiering decisions, and going too far one way or the other on the scale causes problems.

The argument that it should be unbanned now, and can always be re-banned later if it becomes a problem, isn't necessarily the best solution. In theory this is fine, but the reality is that people don't always agree, and that it takes forever for anything to get done in regards to tiering policy with this tier - take the last ban, BP, as an example. It's possible the tier ends up viewing Swagger as a minor thing in the background that nobody is going to go to the trouble of re-banning. Or, let's say we do end up deciding that it should be re-banned, but now it gets bogged up in bureaucracy so people are stuck with the problem until things get fixed.

We have enough information right now to make an informed decision, and claiming that nobody has even the smallest idea what a meta with Swagger is absurd. This isn't speculation about a major gameplay element that has never been in comp play, like say an amazing new Pokemon. This is a move that has been around for more than fifteen years, that we know all the mechanics behind, which has no depth to it, that was legal in recent history, and which it's very obvious as to what of the few users will have any consistency. Dismissing all other arguments on the grounds that we don't know what Swagger holds is a poor excuse.

Consistency is also something to keep in mind with tiering policy. Mega Rayquaza wasn't given a SM unban, or even some kind of discussion / test, yet it's a game element with far more depth to it and uncertainty in development when compared to Swagger. The reason it wasn't unbanned was because there is cost associated with reintroducing such an element, and we have some foresight of what that game element is already like. Therefore, it was decided that there was no need to unban Mega Ray for SM. Why should Swagger get special treatment? We don't need to reintroduce OHKO moves into Ubers to understand that they lower comp edge. We know what Swagger holds, and I'm of the opinion that it holds more bad than good.
 
#14
minority's post seems to have no understanding of the background and conceptualisation of ubers and points out my imagined reasoning for no rhyme nor reason and therefore isn't worth discussing

there seems to be a general consensus (and also common sense given the purpose of ubers!) that we should remove the clause, so if Hack and Fireburn could do that would be great unless they have any additional qualms not yet voiced! thx
 
#16
Swear to god theorymonning has always and always be shit logic that should never be used when discussing suspects. It should not be relevant to the matter at hand so idk why minority keeps bringing it up. How tf does anyone know what swagger will do to a metagame when such a metagame has never existed since the start of sumo anyways is beyond me.

Also idk about u, but a percentage decrease on anything cannot be overstated enough on how much it hurts something. See how one of the most broken as fuck mons had to go from a 85% acc mvoe to a 60% (a 30% or so decrease in acc) made it drop from broken to borderline unviable according to the current viability rankings (C+ is essentially unviable as far as I know). Confusion dropping from 50% to a 33% now becomes a move that is heavily in favor of the opponent and that's before even factoring shit like accuracy and how prankster shit is gone which further skews the odds in the opponents favor. Marshadow is also at a risk during a swagger turn so it's not like it is an instant win button like what you're implying.

tl;dr: free swagger.
fuck theorymonning
 

WreckDra

crackling abuser
is a Contributor Alumnus
#17
I would like to see this put through bojangles-style clause retest, but if that can't happen for whatever reason I do support the removal of Swagger Clause.
 
#19
Although I'm in favor of the swagger unban (as I believe everything should be given a chance before deeming it broken/uncompetitive), I think such a thing should not be done now. It has been a month or so since we've entered the Marshy Phase (as I call it) and I'm pretty sure none of us are accustomed to it yet. We're all still getting use to the changes which have occurred after the release of Marshadow, and unbanning swagger now won't give us a clear picture of whether swagger is really unworthy of a ban or not. To conclude, I say we should give it some time first, then unban swagger and see how things go.
 
Last edited:
#20
Speaking of metagame changes, Mega Diancie just got released. I think that fact should be kept in consideration in regards to a Swagger unban for reasons that should be quite obvious.
 
#22
Putting aside the tendency in Ubers to only ban absolutely neccessary things, do we really want to add yet another strat that further neuters offensive mons and increases RNG-decided games? In other words, is reintroducing Swagger because "it's not that overpowered" really worth reducing the enjoyment of playing Ubers?

I know that statement will get a lot of flak especially from players that play comp mons in order to win, not in order to have fun, but hear me out. By unbanning Swagger you're just opening up more avenues for players to win using RNG and on top of that you're increasing the viability of stall which isn't enjoyable to play against. The more RNG+stall you introduce the less skill is going to be the deciding factor in winning games
 
#23
Putting aside the tendency in Ubers to only ban absolutely neccessary things, do we really want to add yet another strat that further neuters offensive mons and increases RNG-decided games? In other words, is reintroducing Swagger because "it's not that overpowered" really worth reducing the enjoyment of playing Ubers?

I know that statement will get a lot of flak especially from players that play comp mons in order to win, not in order to have fun, but hear me out. By unbanning Swagger you're just opening up more avenues for players to win using RNG and on top of that you're increasing the viability of stall which isn't enjoyable to play against. The more RNG+stall you introduce the less skill is going to be the deciding factor in winning games
RNG is irrelevant factor for Ubers tiering decision. Is swagger uncompetitive? The general consensus is no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top