Gen 6 Swagger Clause?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please, luck isn't much of a factor for swagger teams since the luck is so heavily in favor of the user it's irrelevant, and i fail to see why you bring this up when people are also willing to make suspect reqs with lol stall. Also ladder is kinda terrible in case it wasn't obvious.
Valid points
 
Epsilonsama, you're coming across as arrogant tbqh. You used your first and second posts to tell all the regular players and posters that they don't understand the tier they spend so much time playing & theorizing about. I know you mean well, but I really don't think these people are lacking in perspective; they've considered your perspective, and many of them reject it.
I have played ubers for many years since the R/S/E days and I'm used to the all but the kitchen sink mentality of it. I feel that many up people are coming to the ubers metagame with a OU mindset. In OU if something is broken you find what makes the meta broken and fix it. In Ubers if you find something broken well though luck, you simply deal with it. I just feel that there's a warping of the nature of ubers and many are trying to turn Ubers into OU+. If that would be the case then maybe it could be prudent to create a new banlist that is akin to old Ubers where everything is pretty much allowed and have Ubers be OU but with strong Pokemon.

If I come as arrogant then I'm sorry but I feel that it's important to determine what kind of Ubers do we want to play. Shall Ubers be a conservative tier were everything is allowed or something akin to OU? I think that's what's really important right now. Because after banning Swagger then we have set a precedent to not only ban abilities but moves. What will happen if Primal Kyogre or Primal Groudon is considered to uncompetivie for current Ubers.
 
Thank you for that context. If you have that much experience, then you are certainly not guilty of arrogance.

I originally thought this ban reflected a change in precedent, but after reading through this thread, I'm convinced that it probably isn't. We already have a precedent for banning certain moves thanks to the OHKO clause. As far as I understand, they're banned for much the same reason people think Swagger should be banned; they lead to an absurdly luck-based game. In that vein, banning Swagger is merely a logical extension of an existing ban criterion, not the creation of a new one. Furthermore, you have to explain why banning (highly random) moves -> banning other things (including characters), which in my view is a highly different question that would indeed reflect a change of precedent. A slippery slope argument requires an explanation of why the slope is slippery; otherwise, it's fallacious.
 
Thank you for that context. If you have that much experience, then you are certainly not guilty of arrogance.

I originally thought this ban reflected a change in precedent, but after reading through this thread, I'm convinced that it probably isn't. We already have a precedent for banning certain moves thanks to the OHKO clause. As far as I understand, they're banned for much the same reason people think Swagger should be banned; they lead to an absurdly luck-based game. In that vein, banning Swagger is merely a logical extension of an existing ban criterion, not the creation of a new one. Furthermore, you have to explain why banning (highly random) moves -> banning other things (including characters), which in my view is a highly different question that would indeed reflect a change of precedent. A slippery slope argument requires an explanation of why the slope is slippery; otherwise, it's fallacious.
The same argument that is used Swagger could be use for other moves that rely on luck. Confuse Ray could be banned and so could ParaFlinch. They are strategies that involve luck to succeed. Pokemon is filled with such moves and there may come a day when a Pokemon might have such a powerful ability that relies on luck that because of it wont be able to be used on Ubers.
 
Confuse Ray could be banned and so could ParaFlinch. They are strategies that involve luck to succeed. Pokemon is filled with such moves and there may come a day when a Pokemon might have such a powerful ability that relies on luck that because of it wont be able to be used on Ubers.
Not a chance in seven hells either of those would be banned. There are a myraid of ways to deal with para flinch (Groudon anyone?) and confuse ray alone isn't all that threatening as there's no boosted monster a ditto can copy. There's a reason these players are using Swagger and not Flatter which does the exact same thing but to your special attack stat instead
 
I'm not an Ubers player, so I can't comment on Swagger's viability in the metagame. However, having followed both this thread and the OU thread, I feel like there are a whole lot of people who are failing to distinguish between something that is uncompetitive and something that is unbalanced, particularly those who are making the slippery slope argument. Something that is unbalanced is simply too powerful compared to most other elements in the metagame; there is little reason to use anything else instead of it. This tends to affect the metagame by causing overcentralisation - most teams will centralise around this element, ways to counter it, ways to counter the counters, etc. OU and the tiers below aim to remove elements of the metagame that are unbalanced, aiming for a diverse metagame where a variety of elements are viable. Ubers, on the other hand, is the refuge for unbalanced elements, a place where a meta consisting of teams built on Xerneas, Xerneas counter, Xerneas counter-counter and filler isn't a problem. Something that is uncompetitive, on the other hand, isn't necessarily successful in the metagame. It may generally be a bad idea to use it. However, what an uncompetitive element does is significantly reduce the chance that a better player with a well constructed team will defeat an inferior player with a poorly built team. Unbalanced elements still require skill to use. Everyone knows of one gimmick team or another that, in the hands of a skilled player, has been used to climb high on the ladder. A well built OU team can, due to the poor level of player quality at the bottom of the Ubers ladder, have a degree of success. Even though the Ubers elements are unbalanced relative to OU, they must still be used with skill to have success. Swagger relies on turning the game into a series of dice rolls; Moody and OHKO moves fall into this category as well. Ubers already has a precedent of banning elements that are uncompetitive, but has only ever banned one element that is unbalanced, Sleep Clause, and that took an extreme level of overcentralisation to be justified (if the reports in the Gen V Suspect Test discussion were anything to go by). There is no slippery slope from banning Swagger (uncompetitive) to banning a hypothetically overpowered Primal Kyogre (unbalanced); bans for balance go against the very nature of Ubers, but bans to maintain a competitive metagame are at the very essence of what Smogon aims for. There is also no slippery slope from banning Swagger to banning ParaFlinch or Confuse Ray, unless it can be shown that either of those two elements has a significant impact on the liklihood of the better player with the better team winning the match (at which point it ceases to be slippery slope and becomes entirely justified).
 
Seen so much swagplay on the ladder.

But this thing seems to counter all of it:

Zekrom @ Lum Berry
Substitute
Bolt Strike
Outrage
(Coverage move of your choice)

Take the +2 boost and destroy them all.
 
Swagmons can carry a sash, so they foul play zekrom, breaking it's sub, then swagger it again. for me, I take on swagger with poison heal gliscor. Poison heal heals of confusion damage, and since It needs to get to plus 6 to start doing real damage to itself, which is still healed in a few turns, and they run the risk of gliscor snapping and taking down thier team.
 
Swagger is silly and I'm in favour of a ban. It is 1) very luck based and 2) uncompetitive. With Swagger you are going to be doing the same thing regardless of what your opponent is doing, unless they have something immune to Thunder Wave in, whereupon you skip the Thunder Wave and go straight for Swagger. After that regardless of what they do you Sub Sub Sub until either Pokemon faints or confusion runs out, then you Swagger, etc. This is obviously simplified (e.g. if you already have a Sub up then you might as well attack with Foul Play) but the point is there: you largely don't have to care what your opponent is doing and that in my opinion is sign that something should be removed.

One could say that the same applies to a Pokemon like Kygore, you just click Water Spout and kill everything. But you can't Water Spout mindlessly; if the other guy outspeeds you you can take a lot of damage resulting in a weak Water Spout, or if the other guy has a Palkia / Grass Arceus / one of the many Kyogre counters out there they can punish you for it. One could say the same applies to Baton Pass teams that just accumulate boosts and then kill everything, but again you still have to predict if the opponent is going to go for phaze, try to set up themselves (especially with Sub), etc. One could say that the same applies to Shaymin-S where you just Sub Leech Seed and then flinch your way through everything, but you still have to react to the opponent doing things like U-turn into a faster Pokemon, or simply having a Pokemon bulky enough to take multiple Air Slashes until they don't flinch and then KO back. Prankster Swagger is just not the same.

That's not to say it can't be beaten. If one tries hard enough it's possible to come up with dedicated Prankster Swagger checks that beat it. It's just that it's a silly strategy that shouldn't exist. Ban. If some people feels that Swagger itself is not deserving of a complete ban, then I would say complex ban Prankster + Swagger.
 
3: There is precedent for using clauses to remove aspects of the game that can consistently force game changing dice rolls. Moody and OHKO Clause were examples of this. However, as we decided with Evasion Clause, the Move/Ability/etc. must actually have a significant impact on the game.
This is pretty much what Swagger is. It's a dice roll that can completely change the game. Due to the confusion mechanics, it's more of a coin flip than a dice roll. Heads, you hit your opponent. Tails, you hit yourself and Klefki can Foul Play your health down, substitute up, or Thunder Wave if it hasn't done so already. Thunder Wave just makes it even worse with the odds to break out of para-fusion. I have seen games where Swagger has tilted the game into another players favor whether it was me or someone else. Bullet 3 and the luck reliance Swagger has to offer to change the game should be enough to warrant a Swagger Clause in Ubers.
 
When i first found this forum, i thought "oh, this HAS to be some sort of joke." But it's not. SwagPlay really does get to people. I've won and lost matches over it. It is very, very luck based. I'm not taking sides in this war, but if it's banned, i'm not losing sleep over it.
 
You cannot ignore Swagger Geo Xern.

Also don't forget based Mean Look Sableye.

Hazards and Mega Gengar are on every decent Swagger team.
Swagger GeoXern is inferior to standard GeoXern since you're using a turn you could've used Geomancy on to use Swagger instead. It also gives up a coverage move, and priority still revenges it. To cite it as an example is like saying TWave is good on GeoXern since it's possible to fish for the 25% paralysis chance. If Sableye is going for Mean Look that's a chance to hit it with a powerful attack as well - it is not bulky.

That said one cannot switch indefinitely between Pokemon that take minimal damage from Foul Play because of 1) hazards 2) aside from Blissey and Chansey, everything is going to take more damage than they can heal passively (i.e. they have to attack, whereupon they can be Swagger'ed) 3) you risk everything getting paralyzed and 4) you get predictable so he can switch to something else that can exploit your switch-in.
 
It's perhaps a bit of a side note and of limited relevance, but there's another aspect that I can't help but think of when I think about SwagPlay - is there any thought given to the type of play it encourages, the type of player it encourages, and the effect it has on both player and spectator enjoyment?

The style of play is very limited in scope and design, and it doesn't help anyone learn or hone their skills of teambuilding, strategy, or prediction. The luck-based nature of the play style and win condition means that players using it don't really learn anything from this style of play whether they win or lose, either, and the community at large does not benefit from this style of play (there's very little of value to be taken from studying the SwagPlay style).

The type of player using SwagPlay is, generally speaking, either a troll, or someone new to competitive pokemon. Trolls aren't a player type that we should care about looking after, and new players ultimately will either move on from SwagPlay to something that they can work on and get better at, or will move on from competitive pokemon to something else. SwagPlay is a roadblock for players, a progress trap. Once a new player realises that their time using SwagPlay has taught them nothing, they'll give it up anyway (and potentially all of competitive pokemon with it), so why not save them some frustration?

Finally, a tricky issue as it touches on "fun", but something that a keen spectator like myself feels is important: player and spectator enjoyment. I recognise that Smogon doesn't ban or clause in order to suit what's fun, as fun is subjective. But Smogon does (I assume) want to keep its crown as the place for the highest level of competitive pokemon play, and SwagPlay is not high level play. It does not attract high level players, or help less skilled players become more skilled. It doesn't provide the audience of replay spectators with exciting, suspenseful, unique matches. The spectacle of SwagPlay to an observer is that of a gimmick - and spectators aren't interested in seeing the same gimmick over and over again.
 
Last edited:

Hugendugen

Noam Chompsky.
is a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
Alright... decision time. I've read through the thread and there were good points made on both sides, but it's pretty clear how the overwhelming majority feels.

Following the precedent set by the Moody and OHKO Clauses, the Swagger ban will be extended to Ubers, removing an almost entirely luck-based and destructive part of the metagame. However I'd like to reiterate what I said in the first post. This will NOT be used as a precedent to balance the metagame by removing aspects that are considered "too strong".

I still need to work out the semantics of whether it will be coined the Swagger Clause or simply a ban on the move Swagger, but functionally they're the same - as of the next restart, Swagger wont be allowed in Ubers battles on Pokemon Showdown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top