SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)

[Evilfaic]

Really any "strategy" that's luck-based or RNG-based just sickens me. What really annoys me is people will build entire teams around SwagPlay (Liepard, Klefki, Sableye, Tornadus, Thundurus, Eviolite Murkrow, Eviolite Purrloin) just to be annoying. You shouldn't be reliant on luck or cheap tactics. In my opinion, Prankster isn't to blame for this, as it has a use in competitive outside of SwagPlay. Swagger is the problem, so I'm in favor of banning it. SwagPlay isn't unbeatable by any means, but it really does make the game less fun to play.

TL;DR: Ban Swagger

 

[Thorhammer]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know this was your game. We should ban anything that removes your fun because it's all about you.

Any secondary rules for a game are, fundamentally, an agreement among players of what not to do because it makes it less fun for them as a whole. When people choose to play under Smogon's rules, they are participating in that agreement.

 

[Wobbyble]

Stop using the word "skill"; the differences in skill should manifest itself during a course of a long serious of battles as in Poker they do over many hands.

Competitive Pokemon is what it is, and arguable a "unique' element to the game is ecology, since the metagame itself is dynamic.

Let's not turn this into a discussion about the English language please.

If you're skillful, you win more. Sometimes luck makes you lose. If you have more skill, losses to luck happen less.
Against Swagplay, skill has a substantially less impact on the outcome of the game. Therefore it is a toxic mechanic.
I really don't think this should be up for discussion. This is a fact.

The second half of your post made no sense.
edit: Yeah please stop using complex and uncommon words and terms, it makes your posts confusing and hard to follow, and when you use them incorrectly it doesn't really help

These arguments are running in circles and are getting pointless. There is no doubt, a high enough percentage of people that wish to see Prankster Confusion go, as well as a substantial number of people that think it should stay. Any further discussion will not shed any new light nor change any opinions. I don't think anything else I say will be contributing.

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

The second half of your post made no sense.
edit: Yeah please stop using complex and uncommon words and terms, it makes your posts confusing and hard to follow, and when you use them incorrectly it doesn't really help

These arguments are running in circles and are getting pointless. There is no doubt, a high enough percentage of people that wish to see Prankster Confusion go, as well as a substantial number of people that think it should stay. Any further discussion will not shed any new light nor change any opinions. I don't think anything else I say will be contributing.

"Ecology" means one has to adapt to the metagame; in nature, the mechanism is natural selection. For instance, certainly the prevalence of Rotom-W is an ecological consequence that is strongly influenced by the prevalence of Talonflame in the metagame.

But the game is what it is...

 

[WildShot]

It was only a matter of time, but Paraflinch has been brought up again.

First to shove your 50 cents back down your throat, NOBODY wants coin flips to decide a match except the people who can't win without it. I'm sick and tired of people saying "chance is part of the game." It is, but a strategy wholly dependent on luck and with so sure counters can't be tolerated.

Now that I've done that, GTFO. Paraflinch isn't even in the same league as swagplay. It doesn't matter how lucky you are, Togekiss isn't going to 6-0 anyone but the biggest noobs in the game (I'm not counting its nasty plot set. That could work, but still won't 6-0 pretty much anyone). Priority swagger means that no matter how skilled somebody is, unless they have one of the 2 viable OU counters (and one requires a safe switch in and a coverage move not commonly seen), even the worst player in the world could beat them. Paraflinch is easy to counter with 2 types, 1 of which is very common, and with how easy it is to outspeed either abuser, KOing them is pretty simple. Swagplay may not be at all consistent or realistically dangerous, but letting bad players get cheap wins from luck when they should be trying to win through skill is crap

I don't know where you're from, my fine friend, but I live in America, where free speech is (mostly) allowed. I think that I'll keep my fifty cents on the table, thanks. If you can't handle that, take a hike.

Oh? A strategy WHOLLY dependent on luck can't be tolerated? Take your pick of a team full of competitive Pokemon. Unless one of those Pokemon is a support 'mon, I can pretty much guarantee that each of those Pokemon carry a move that ISN'T 100% accurate. Do you know how many people have had a Pokemon use Rock Slide, miss, then watch their Pokemon get blasted by HYDRO PUMP? Don't honestly try telling me that chance is really different.

Togekiss isn't going to 6-0 anybody, but unless you ARE a noob, Klefki honestly isn't, either. Pack a Pokemon that can handle it. Work around it. Seriously. Are you telling me that you can't even handle that? There HAVE been trolls occupying this thread, but there are quite a few people who have given account to their ability to work around it.

So that's another 25 cents. Soon I'll have a dollar on the table.

 

[Ninja Charizard]

It is a competition if some teams handle SwagPlay better than others.

If those checks and counters can be beaten (and your team is proof that they can), then SwagPlay isn't a problem because it's uncompetitive, it's a problem because it's just plain broken.

Some checks and counters can be better or worse to deal with this team, but in the end, it all boils down to luck. The Prankster may or may not succeed in getting rid of the checks depending on whether the confusion works often enough.

The problem is that luck becomes the main driver of the match and the main factor to decide who will win. That is wrong. Because even though Pokemon isn't the most competitive game around, it's still very competitive, and it involves a lot of strategy, prediction and outsmarting. Swagplay just makes all of this nearly obsolete and turns it into a roulette, with one side following a recipe and the other side desperately trying to get a lucky break to deal with confusion.

 

[Wobbyble]

"Ecology" means one has to adapt to the metagame; in nature, the mechanism is natural selection. For instance, certainly the prevalence of Rotom-W is an ecological consequence that is strongly influenced by the prevalence of Talonflame in the metagame.

But the game is what it is...

I understand what you're saying, I've take 3 biology classes since entering high school. What I don't understand is how "ecology" is relevant to Pokemon not being a primarily skill based game.

 

[Aquaslash]

certainly the prevalence of Rotom-W is an ecological consequence that is strongly influenced by the prevalence of Talonflame in the metagame.

Speaking of that cancerous thorn in my face, doesn't he outspeed and severely damage the entirety of the swagplay group anyways? The only one I'm really unsure about is Thundurus, but I don't think any of them are liking that banded brave bird that he loves to spam.

 

[Arcticblast]

Arcticblast
SkarmChansey for Kyub(Sub-3 attack or band both)/Mega Pinsir/ (Chansey specifically handles Manaphy/Landorus-I) Clefable/Sylveon for Hydregion/Kyub, and AV slowbro+Skarm to take care of Garchomp-mega (Even mixed with be walled when used in conjunction with Slowbro's fire resist and ice access)... All in four pokemon, and could probably skip the Sylveon part and rely on skarmBliss to take everything. Kyub is an odd beast who breaks stall when mixed but is rather easy if Band/Sub+3 Special. Regardless, Hyper Voice fairies stop it.

It can be done. Currently, the standard VenuTranSkarmBliss core for stall handles this relatively well, only needing a chomp check/counter outside of it.
While it is beside the point, there is no doubt it could easily be done. With something as bulky as this, and now because you don't get burn/freeze off 30% moves, no flinches or the likes do the lack of luck, you'd have to start by knock off and slowly cripple me with hazards, hoping you can trap/destroy skarm with me making a bad play because you wouldn't have crits to assist when fusion bolt only does 47% uninvested?

Yeah, Luck really helps teams vs stall.

I mean CB Kyurem-B 2HKOes all of the checks you mentioned for it with Fusion Bolt and Slowbro needs to be at full health to switch in on Mega Garchomp in Sand (yes I know it has regenerator, that doesn't change the fact that it'll be taking some huge hits). Manaphy boosts to +6 against Chansey while it Seismic Tosses or something and deals 44% minimum with Surf, which Chansey is definitely walling... And that says nothing about Life Orb variants, which 2HKO (because again, what is Chansey doing back?). Granted there is literally no Pokemon in the game that can avoid a 2HKO from all of Kyurem-B's potential sets (Registeel is your closest bet and that only wins without Focus Blast), but do you see my point? Stall's greatest threat isn't hax, it's wall breakers - even the best stall teams are going to have a ton of trouble with them and there's next to nothing you can do about it.

Also, have fun switching something in to Mega Heracross when Rock Blast 2HKOes max/max Clefable after Stealth Rock :)

 

[Toljik]

Some checks and counters can be better or worse to deal with this team, but in the end, it all boils down to luck. The Prankster may or may not succeed in getting rid of the checks depending on whether the confusion works often enough.

The problem is that luck becomes the main driver of the match and the main factor to decide who will win. That is wrong. Because even though Pokemon isn't the most competitive game around, it's still very competitive, and it involves a lot of strategy, prediction and outsmarting. Swagplay just makes everything pointless and turns it into a roulette, with one side following a recipe and the other side desperately trying to get a lucky break to deal with confusion.

I guess I agree with you, but only if "SwagPlay" means "Prankster + Swagger + Foul Play".

But people here are seriously suggesting making a Confusion Clause, as if Swagger alone has the same guaranteed-diceroll factor as Swagger + Prankster.

 

[WebBowser]

I've read the first page, which I feel like is going to be a pretty good representative of the whole topic. Here are my thoughts.

1. Do not ban parafusion as a whole. While unimportant at higher tiers, in the lower tiers parafusion is a legitimate way for bulky mons like regigigas to cripple an opposing mon.

2. I think that banning mons in this case would be inefficient. As others have noted, Klefkei and Thunderous, among others, have legitimate uses in the current meta.

3. swagger is problematic because of the boost it provides, it allows ditto to come in on a confused, paralyzed mon who may or may not be weakened and easily win out most of the time (most physical mons can KO himself at +2). It also allows foul play to deal massive damage on the enemy even in the absence of the opponent hitting himself. Fast subs means that the victim mon needs to be able to attack several times in a row in order to KO the opponent. Switching is problematic because it allows the enemy to spread paralysis through your team, crippling them for when they have to fight the other 5 mons on the enemy team. Lastly, at +2, confusion will deal massive damage to both physical mons and special mons, even at 0 IVs, - nature.

4. And we all know why this is a problem now and not last gen, it's because a good defensive mon got the ability to do this. Klefkei has phenomenal defensive typing that leopard could only wish for, meaning that it's much harder to KO during that critical first turn it tries to paralyze you.

TL;DR: I think any ban more comprehensive then banning swagger alone is an unwise move. Swagger + prankster is also an option if there are pokemon that need confusion but lack confuse ray or flatter and we do not want to take that away from them.

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

I'd like to remind everyone of the original focus of this topic: We are evaluating if SwagPlay "makes games entirely luck reliant" and if should be stopped as a result.

I'd like to address several arguments made by the pro-ban side in this post with an anti-ban rebuttal.

1. This is not a legitimate team strategy because it turns the game into literally coin flips.
1a. This is a "strategy" because it is reliant on RNG.

I disagree. This is an oversimplification of SwagPlay. For a very basic analysis of how it actually works, I suggest looking at my post here: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/swagplay-evaluating-potential-bans.3500620/page-11#post-5260897 Iterated SwagPlay based on a single Swagger usage with Substitute/T-Wave results in the strategy becoming statistically more reliable than Sleep Powder! I don't see anyone calling for a Sleep Powder ban or a Focus Blast ban becausse of the luck factor of its miss chance.

Just imagine how ridiculous that argument would be (particularly before the grass type immunity to Sleep Powder change): "We need to ban Sleep Powder because it causes the game to become luck reliant. It's almost a coin flip that it can entirely disable a Pokemon in my team. When used in conjunction with abilities like CompoundEyes, the luck becomes even more tilted in favor of the Sleep Powder user."

I conclude that the move set as a whole is reliable and competitive, no more coin flipping than someone utilizing Focus Blast, Sleep Powder, or Thunder when not in the rain, for example.

2. Pokemon should be like Chess without luck or RNG factors.

Given that the community is alright with a variety of "hax" in the game, this isn't a valid argument unless you have more to back it up. Just saying this without analysis of SwagPlay to conclusively prove that it is an unreliable strategy that is more luck reliant than the most luck reliant moves that are commonly used in the meta-game, this statement does not address the first point of the topic -- does SwagPlay makes games entirely luck reliant?

If you use this argument, please provide evidence that, given normal strategies against SwagPlay (or even optimal strategies if you're feeling lucky), SwagPlay is less reliable than accepted RNG-based factors and is indeed unreliable.

3. SwagPlay should be banned because it is only countered by obscure counters like Numel or forcing people to carry Magic Bouncers.

This argument is inherently flawed because SwagPlay does not REQUIRE you to carry an obscure counter to beat it -- if it did, we would be banning SwagPlay under the clause of overcentralization of the metagame, NOT due to luck-based factors.

Consider the following: Any defensive Pokemon with low attack that is capable of breaking a SwagPlayer's sub is likely to win the standoff. Typically speaking, a SwagPlayer will be unable to deal more than ~30% in a given turn, without +4 or +6 boosts on the defensive Pokemon. This means that, given enough turns, the defensive Pokemon will almost always win.

An example of a defensive Pokemon that fits this description would be Rotom-W who can Volt Switch to destroy both the sub and remove confusion. This will result in a net GAIN of turns, since that requires TWO turns of set-up. Mandibuzz can cripple SwagPlay by landing a single Knock Off. Blissey/Chansey take such trivial damage that they should win every time given any reasonable attack. Now, these are just the hardest counters -- they are significantly others who will win iterated SwagPlay against a SwagPlayer.

I believe we can all agree that SwagPlay does NOT overcentalize the metagame. Thus, we need to look at the argument as if it is valid for point 1 (luck reliance). Arguments of this nature should not be accepted as valid for point 1 BECAUSE they do not offer evidence and rely on strawmen like Numel.

4. A strategy in competitive Pokemon should be based on SKILL and not LUCK, therefore we should ban SwagPlay.

I hear this one bandied about due to the effectiveness of the Swaggerificc experiment, where a formulaic SwagPlay team reached 1400-1500 ratings on the ladder. Yes, a formulaic approach to SwagPlay will result in a decent ladder rating. I don't believe this is good proof that the strategy is any more luck based than any other one, however, because we don't have a sample size.

To prove that this argument is flawed, I offer up the following hypothetical situation:

Suppose someone made a HO team with a suicide lead and 4 fast sweepers and a Bisharp or something. The strategy is as follows:

1. Taunt if Smeargle or something that needs to be taunted. We can make a rudimentary list of Pokemon that this will beat.
2. Lay hazards.
3. If still alive, start attacking.

Iterated:
4. When the suicide lead dies, switch into the first Pokemon that has an SE against the enemy.
5. Use the SE attack on the enemy.
6. If you have no attacks with neutral coverage, switch to someone who has an SE attack against the enemy.
7. Loop.

Exceptions:
If the enemy sends out a common Defogger like Mandibuzz, switch in Bisharp.

I assert that this non-skill based formula team could possibly have a surprisingly good ladder score -- possible comparable to the rote "Swaggerificc" style of SwagPlay.
Furthermore, imagine if someone called for a ban on suicide leads with fast sweepers because it was not skill-based because you could use a formula like this!

SwagPlay in its purest form is analogous, but more advanced SwagPlay users do use skill in conjunction with smarter team comps for effectiveness just like how a smarter user of HO would use their team. Consider the following: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/supreme-swaggotry.3497647/ This is an example of a team which has a smarter comp and requires more skill to use. It was able to reach a very respectable rating.


--------------------------------------------

Conclusions

I believe that, without further evidence that contradicts my findings, we cannot conclude that SwagPlay is (a) entirely luck reliant, as it is more reliable than some accepted strategies (b) requires no skill, as it is likely no formulaic that some other team archetypes in terms of usage and can be improved significantly both in usage and in team composition and (c) requiring obscure counters to beat, as it is defeated by many common Pokemon, such as the most used pokemon in OU currently.

 

[Ninja Charizard]

I guess I agree with you, but only if "SwagPlay" means "Prankster + Swagger + Foul Play".

But people here are seriously suggesting making a Confusion Clause, as if Swagger alone has the same guaranteed-diceroll factor as Swagger + Prankster.

I'm just tired of writing "PranksterSwagger" 3 times every post. Swagplay is shorter :P

I think confusion clause is unnecessary.

 

[Jojobobo]

I think on the basis of the actual strategy, it doesn't deserve a ban. It can be countered (Chansey, Blissey, Shed Skin users, pokemon with low attack that resist Dark type, anything with Infiltrate, anything with Encore or Taunt, Lum berry users, most electric or ground pokemon, synchronise users, anything with Magic Bounce or Magic Coat, Rain Dance Hydration users, Limber or Own Tempo pokemon, etc. etc.) and even on teams where you don't have a hard counter with it being luck based it can be a fallible strategy. As there are so many counters, it really doesn't have a centralising effect on team-building which should be the main concern for how restrictive a strategy it is.

On the basis of it being uncompetitive, that's a subjective issue. On the one hand, it's never good when people can build gimmicky teams by rote because they'll innately win against people some of the time regardless of skill level - however most gimmicks will win against some people some of the time who are caught at unawares. On the other, a good player should be able to cope and have some aspect of their team to deal with the problem. The luck based argument is also spurious - no one complains when they freeze another pokemon, or when the opponent misses, etc. I understand those strategies aren't based on those aspects (well, not typically), but the same logic applies.

If Swagger is banned, it sets a precedent for a greater level restriction being applied to ordinary gameplay. I therefore wouldn't ban it - I have used the strategy but wouldn't do again just because it's so flawed.

 

[TaBuu]

Confusion Suspect
ahhh, it's finally here~

Evasion Clause was implemented back in Gen V with Garchomp's reintroduction into OU
The biggest underlying factor was the "luck" aspect that many competitive players simply dreaded and hated.
In essence Garchomp lacked any solid counters or checks because nothing was guaranteed to hit it. In a similar vein, a parallel can be drawn to the infamous "SwagPlay"

Confusion Clause (i.e Swagger + Thunder Wave ) should most definitely be integrated into the OU metagame to ensure that we have a healthy, strategic, competitive scene.

Now I know there's more than likely an anti-Confusion Clause party out there somewhere. (Verlisify lol)
Some may argue that luck is an inevitable factor found deeply rooted in Pokemon (Scald, Critical Hits, Accuracy, Min/Max damage, etc)
That's fine and that's something we can't really do anything about.
HOWEVER, when players begin to "fish" for these gimmicky, non-strategic, thoughtless, luck-based playstyles, that's when a clause should be implemented.
It's unfair for any player, noob or veteran, to lose to motherf*cking Klefki and Liepard cause they couldn't move due to paralysis and they keep hitting themselves in confusion.

tl;dr
These strategies are non-competitive, luck-oriented and generally frowned upon in a competitive environment.
To be frankly honest, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to implement Confusion Clause.

 

[Toljik]

Confusion Suspect
ahhh, it's finally here~

Evasion Clause was implemented back in Gen V with Garchomp's reintroduction into OU
The biggest underlying factor was the "luck" aspect that many competitive players simply dreaded and hated.
In essence Garchomp lacked any solid counters or checks because nothing was guaranteed to hit it. In a similar vein, a parallel can be drawn to the infamous "SwagPlay"

Confusion Clause (i.e Swagger + Thunder Wave ) should most definitely be integrated into the OU metagame to ensure that we have a healthy, strategic, competitive scene.

Now I know there's more than likely an anti-Confusion Clause party out there somewhere. (Verlisify lol)
Some may argue that luck is an inevitable factor found deeply rooted in Pokemon (Scald, Critical Hits, Accuracy, Min/Max damage, etc)
That's fine and that's something we can't really do anything about.
HOWEVER, when players begin to "fish" for these gimmicky, non-strategic, thoughtless, luck-based playstyles, that's when a clause should be implemented.
It's unfair for any player, noob or veteran, to lose to motherf*cking Klefki and Liepard cause they couldn't move due to paralysis and they keep hitting themselves in confusion.

tl;dr
These strategies are non-competitive, luck-oriented and generally frowned upon in a competitive environment.
To be frankly honest, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to implement Confusion Clause.

Try to ladder using 6 Confuse Ray users, without Prankster.

Because without Prankster, Confusion becomes a gamble on the part of the person using it, because the opponent has a chance to hit you with a move before you can confuse it. Not to mention that using a confusion move means NOT using another, potentially more useful move. It's not a win button, it's a risk, and something you have to actually think about.

"Then people will just use Electrode and Deoxys-S!"

Who lose to anything with Prankster, (almost) anything with Choice Scarf and anything with a priority move, and in OU that's a pretty damn big list.

 

[Mowtom]

Just imagine how ridiculous that argument would be (particularly before the grass type immunity to Sleep Powder change): "We need to ban Sleep Powder because it causes the game to become luck reliant. It's almost a coin flip that it can entirely disable a Pokemon in my team. When used in conjunction with abilities like CompoundEyes, the luck becomes even more tilted in favor of the Sleep Powder user."

Except this is similar to what happened with the Sleep Clause...

 

[Calm_Mind_Latias]

Confusion Suspect
ahhh, it's finally here~

Evasion Clause was implemented back in Gen V with Garchomp's reintroduction into OU
The biggest underlying factor was the "luck" aspect that many competitive players simply dreaded and hated.
In essence Garchomp lacked any solid counters or checks because nothing was guaranteed to hit it. In a similar vein, a parallel can be drawn to the infamous "SwagPlay"


...

tl;dr
These strategies are non-competitive, luck-oriented and generally frowned upon in a competitive environment.
To be frankly honest, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to implement Confusion Clause.

Well, "luck" should not be banned. I don't hear anyone advocating unbanning Sand Veil this Gen.

HaxChomp was banned due to game mechanics, such as potential perma-Sand, not merely because it introduces luck. Brightpowder was not broken due to the its large opportunity cost as Pokemon would not carry a more useful item. Facing HaxChomp requires (or strongly encourages) one to run a competiting weather inducer (and that can be seen as metagame centralizing), but in this meta, 8 potential turns of weather does not seem to be enough to justify the high use of Sand Veil. Opportunities costs, potential counterplay, and overall effectiveness of luck-based strategies should be considered when arguing for a ban.

Quick Claw is not banned (lol) as its unreliability gives it a high opportunity cost.

 

[Lee]

However, when players begin to "fish" for these gimmicky, non-strategic, thoughtless, luck-based playstyles, that's when a clause should be implemented

I fish with Scald way more than any other luck-based playstyle. And my general impression is that Scald causes WAAAAAY more frustration than Swagplay at every level of play.

#banScald2014

This war against probability-stacking (because luck is not a fair description...you are using your valuable turns that could be spent doing other things to engineer a scenario wherein probability is in your favour) needs to stop. When Sand Veil/Brightpowder etc were banned I remember slippery slope arguments that foresaw a distopic future with 'confusion clause' amongst other things. At the time they were shot down and yet, here we are.

 

[Thorhammer]

I don't know where you're from, my fine friend, but I live in America, where free speech is (mostly) allowed. I think that I'll keep my fifty cents on the table, thanks. If you can't handle that, take a hike.

The First Amendment protects you from the government, not from an informal group of gamers who aren't interested in your ridiculous comparisons.

And it's just silly to say that only support Pokemon use perfectly accurate moves. Let's take a look at the S-ranked Pokemon, shall we? Mega Pinsir pretty much exclusively uses Return / Quick Attack / Earthquake / Swords Dance, and alternatives like Substitute and Close Combat still don't miss. Mega Charizard X tends to use Dragon Dance, Flare Blitz, Outrage... It can use Will-o-wisp for a bulky set, but its sweeping sets are plenty accurate. Aegislash is perfectly accurate except on unusual sets where it plans to blow itself up with a Head Smash. The main inaccurate moves you'll see from S rank are Fire Blast and Focus Blast from Mega Charizard Y and Thundurus-I, and both of those moves are quite well known for being iffy because of their accuracy failing at the wrong times, to the point where Pokemon that can get away with it often avoid them. Focus Blast's power/accuracy are reminiscent of Hurricane, a move that made Tornadus-T a monster in Gen 5, but now that it can't easily abuse Drizzle to remove that accuracy, it's lost a lot of notoriety. And that's just a move with a 30% miss chance, not the 50% miss chance Confusion adds to every move!

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

Confusion Suspect
ahhh, it's finally here~

Evasion Clause was implemented back in Gen V with Garchomp's reintroduction into OU
The biggest underlying factor was the "luck" aspect that many competitive players simply dreaded and hated.
In essence Garchomp lacked any solid counters or checks because nothing was guaranteed to hit it. In a similar vein, a parallel can be drawn to the infamous "SwagPlay"

Confusion Clause (i.e Swagger + Thunder Wave ) should most definitely be integrated into the OU metagame to ensure that we have a healthy, strategic, competitive scene.

Now I know there's more than likely an anti-Confusion Clause party out there somewhere. (Verlisify lol)
Some may argue that luck is an inevitable factor found deeply rooted in Pokemon (Scald, Critical Hits, Accuracy, Min/Max damage, etc)
That's fine and that's something we can't really do anything about.
HOWEVER, when players begin to "fish" for these gimmicky, non-strategic, thoughtless, luck-based playstyles, that's when a clause should be implemented.
It's unfair for any player, noob or veteran, to lose to motherf*cking Klefki and Liepard cause they couldn't move due to paralysis and they keep hitting themselves in confusion.

tl;dr
These strategies are non-competitive, luck-oriented and generally frowned upon in a competitive environment.
To be frankly honest, I can't imagine why anybody wouldn't want to implement Confusion Clause.

1. We are not evaluating SwagPlay as an overcentalization of the metagame. Your point about Garchomp is different entirely as Gar. Lacking any "solid counters or checks" is not necessarily grounds for a ban. For example, before Gen VI, technically Shadow Tag and Arena Trap literally had no counters by nature of the ability, but trapping was not banned. Garchomp with Sand Veil was banned because of its combination, not because of any singular piece.

2. I assert that SwagPlay is not inherently a gimmicky non-strategic thoughtless luck-based playstyle for reasons in this post: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/swagplay-evaluating-potential-bans.3500620/page-29#post-5263118 . I ask for a clarification on what makes ANY given strategy gimmicky and furthermore why any strategy that is defined as gimmicky under your definition should be banned.

3. I disagree with the argument that it is unfair to lose due to parafusion. It's the exact same argument as something like "It's unfair for any player, noob or veteran, to lose to motherf*cking Ice Beam freeze change." Yes, there will be luck and hax in Pokemon, as you have stated. I believe that iterated SwagPlay, however, is more reliable than your cited "luck factors", making it more of a strategy and less chance.

4. I believe that with these refutations, I am making the point that SwagPlay is in fact competitive and non-luck oriented. It is indeed frowned upon in a competitive environment, but I believe that it should be allowed without a clause. A Confusion clause would constrain an entire set of teams which are backed by this strategy.

I await your response!

Except this is similar to what happened with the Sleep Clause...

Not entirely. It appears that most arguments against SwagPlay are rooted in emotion. The strategy is quite annoying to fight against. Sleep clause, however, tackles a different problem. Sleep is far more disruptive than Swagger for several reasons -- (a) It is far more reliable. 100% sleep moves exist, but there is no method of forcing a 100% hit-itself-in-confusion. (b) The gains from acting on a lost turn are far greater on a sleep user. SwagPlay's best option is to use Foul Play, which is ineffectual against a large set of Pokemon. A sleep user can boost themselves, hit the enemy with a powerful attack, or even use sleep again if there is no sleep clause. The options are far deadlier and more varied for a sleep user.

It's also not analogous because we are looking into banning Swagger for being too UNRELIABLE, not reliable. Sleep is a far more reliable and deadly weapon.

 

[Suisho]

Q1. Ban Swagger?
A1. No. Swagger is a legitimate move which has been recommended on niche sets since long before Smogon even existed. In recent times, it has given certain Pokémon (e.g. Liepard) and attacks (e.g. Foul Play) a new leash on life that they would not have otherwise enjoyed.

Q2. Ban Prankster?
A2. No. Prankster is an interesting addition to the family of Pokémon abilities. It seems not only excessively harsh to ban an ability upon which so many Pokémon rely to be relevant in OU and UU but also not in the spirit of the naturally-evolving metagame to ban such an ability. Three years of Generation 5 playtesting did not reveal that Prankster is inherently broken. I think there are many other abilities that we would have to consider blanket bans for before we could justify a blanket ban on Prankster.

Q3. Ban the combination of Swagger and Prankster on the same Pokémon?
A3. No. See below.

Q4. Ban teams from having more than two (2) Pokémon who have Prankster for their ability?
A4. Yes. If you're to ban anything, ban this.

The problem with Prankster teams seems to mirror the problem which Species Clause exists to prevent: a strategy or gameplay element which is fine when only one Pokémon on the team can do it but is infuriating when all six Pokémon can do it. Whatever one's views on Mega Blaziken, Mega Gengar, Mega Kangaskhan, or Mega Lucario, I think most players would agree that 6x Mega Lucario teams or 6x Mega Kangaskhan teams should not be allowed. Species Clause exists to prevent this very abuse. If the community and/or staff are determined to ban something in order to bring Prankster teams under control, I would suggest a similar course of action. Don't ban Swagger. And don't ban Prankster either. Don't even ban the combination of the two. Instead, ban anyone from having more than two Prankster Pokémon on their team.

Why two? It's semi-arbitrary, but I feel that two is a small enough number to not permit significant Parafusion Prankster abuse while at the same time allowing people to run their favorites as much as possible. This way, if somebody's favorites include (for example) Liepard and Sableye, they can run both Pokémon on the same team without a problem. However, anyone wanting to run a third Prankster Pokémon will be denied. If you're trying to run 3+ Pranksters, it's pretty clear what you're up to. If you're running only two, then while it might still annoy people who despise "hax" and random luck, it's in keeping with the spirit of the game that Game Freak intended.

Suggestion: Everyone interested in this discussion should re-examine the debate over banning Stealth Rock in the early days of Gen 4. Many of the arguments being levied against Prankster, Swagger, or the combination of the two were also levied against Stealth Rock.

• "It centralizes the meta."
• "It makes battling less fun."
• "It forces me to run obscure Pokémon or Pokémon I don't care for."
• "It forces me to run an obscure move when I could be running something better."
• "It forces me to run it myself if I want to win."

Many of these arguments sound as valid to me today as they did six and a half years ago. But realize something: Smogon decided against banning Stealth Rock. The staff argued that Stealth Rock was here to stay, a new mainstay of the metagame, that some Pokémon were going to be severely hosed by it (e.g. Gen 4 Charizard) while others were going to rise in the rankings because of it. It was argued that this was what it means for a metagame to be dynamic, to be ever-evolving. Didn't have a Rapid Spinner on your team? Time to add one. Didn't like Rapid Spin? Tough: either delete a move to make room for it or else quit complaining every time your team loses because of entry hazards. Rapid Spin was a move that no one really bothered with in Gen 3 even though Skarmory's love of Spikes was long known. It wasn't until Gen 4 with the omnipresence of Stealth Rock (and, to a lesser extent, the introduction of Toxic Spikes) that Rapid Spin really came into its own as a staple move of the metagame. I see a lot of the moves and abilities that have been brought up in this discussion as being similar to Rapid Spin in this regard. In a meta where Parafusion Pranksters run amok, lesser-used moves, abilities, and Pokémon could have a chance to shine in the higher tiers. We saw this happen with Donphan, Forretress, and Gastrodon in earlier generations: Pokémon who by all accounts were UU yet who rose to OU because their usage stats mandated it. I feel like we're stifling similar promotions for Pokémon in this new metagame. And I don't like that.

Closing remarks: Do I like Parafusion Prankster teams? No. They're annoying, gimmicky, and confoundedly effective. But do I think the entire archetype deserves to be banned? No. If you're going to ban anything, ban the concept of six-Prankster Pokémon teams. Introduce a clause (be it Prankster Clause, Parafusion Clause, whatever) that forbids people from building teams with more than two Pranksters. Two is fine, three or more is not. If you do this, you allow any one of the Pranksters to remain relevant in the meta without giving carte blanche to the annoying all-Prankster teams.

That stated, I'm not even sure if all-Prankster teams ought to be banned. I feel like too much energy is being spent trying to mold the Gen 6 landscape to match the familiar metagame of HGSS (which was what the Gen 5 landscape was likewise molded to match) rather than accepting the Gen 6 landscape for what it really is and could be. I know that I personally don't like the idea of a metagame dominated by Prankster teams. But I also know that I wasn't exactly thrilled with Stealth Rock + Rapid Spin in Gen 4. Gen 4 witnessed kings become paupers and paupers become kings. Maybe that's what Gen 6 would do too if we would only allow it to.

 

[TaBuu]

Well, "luck" should not be banned. I don't hear anyone advocating unbanning Sand Veil this Gen.

HaxChomp was banned due to game mechanics, such as potential perma-Sand, not merely because it introduces luck. Brightpowder was not broken due to the its large opportunity cost as Pokemon would not carry a more useful item. Facing HaxChomp requires (or strongly encourages) one to run a competiting weather inducer (and that can be seen as metagame centralizing), but in this meta, 8 potential turns of weather does not seem to be enough to justify the high use of Sand Veil. Opportunities costs, potential counterplay, and overall effectiveness of luck-based strategies should be considered when arguing for a ban.

Quick Claw is not banned (lol) as its unreliability gives it a high opportunity cost.

Sand Veil didn't need to last the entire battle. Just long enough to the point where Garchomp could walk through it's potential checks and counters.
I'm not saying anything about bringing back the Veil abilities in Gen VI because of weather nerfs. I'm simply attempting to draw a parallel to the current issue of "SwagPlay".

I fish with Scald way more than any other luck-based playstyle. And my general impression is that Scald causes WAAAAAY more frustration than Swagplay at every level of play.

#banScald2014

This war against probability-stacking (because luck is not a fair description...you are using your valuable turns that could be spent doing other things to engineer a scenario wherein probability is in your favour) needs to stop. When Sand Veil/Brightpowder etc were banned I remember slippery slope arguments in the past that foresaw a distopic future with 'confusion clause' amongst other things. At the time they were shot down and yet, here we are.

You can fish for Scald Burns but I have yet to see a team where the entire premises is to Scald Burn the opposition to death.
Swagger+Foul Play+Thunder Wave is very different from Scald Burn fishing.
Those three moves have become a legitimate team archetype where the player aimlessly and mindlessly clicks away and hopes that luck is on their side.
Where is the competitive aspect in allowing Swagger+Foul Play+Thunder Wave to exist? I'm not saying that it's unbeatable. I'm merely saying that such "uncompetitive, luck-oriented" strategies shouldn't be allowed to potentially get in the way of more competitively oriented strategies.

 

[Soul Fly]

I think on the basis of the actual strategy, it doesn't deserve a ban. It can be countered by..

Okay go on

Chansey, Blissey

Yes legit

Shed Skin users

oh yes... Scrafty. And? Also keep in mind you give up a far superior competitive ability in Moxie/Intimidate.

pokemon with low attack that resist Dark type

Name a few in the OU environment please. The only commonly used one I can think of is Keldeo. For whom ironically the useless attack boost from Justify makes Swagger+Foul play a bigger problem

anything with Infiltrate

Wut?

anything with Encore or Taunt

Doesn't stop turn one 50/50. Same for taunt except Thundy, who ironically is a prominent prankster user himself...

Lum berry users

Please don't.

most electric

Yes ok cool. Rotom and.... and? **Checks the top mons in viability list again** (not to mention if it loses the first 50/50 it loses period, since it doesn't have reliable recovery)

or ground pokemon

You do know ground is a primarily physical type? you know that, don't you? DON'T YOU?

synchronise users

Hmm let's all use Umbreon as a staple in OU, great solution

anything with Magic Bounce

Cool! How novel. Let's see. Xatu, Espeon... oh wait. NO WAIT AGAIN! WE HAVE A SPANKING NEW MEGA ABSOL (but wait... even Klefki can 3HKO that thing with NON-STAB foul play thanks to that insane attack stat.. so lets not even discuss the skillcats :-( )

or Magic Coat

Deoxys-S... yeah right let's use a psychic type with paper thin defences against foul play. Deo-D and smeargle cannot do anything back.

Rain Dance Hydration users

Hi BW2 is an outdated meta. Good luck using Rain Dance Manaphy

Limber

GLAMEOW IS SO AWESUM IN OU! FOK SMORGEN. OH WAIT WE HAVE DA MIGHTY STONFUSK

or Own Tempo pokemon

Purugly/Numel master race, yes please use those

etc. etc.

My Ass.

and even on teams where you don't have a hard counter with it being luck based it can be a fallible strategy. As there are so many counters, it really doesn't have a centralising effect on team-building which should be the main concern for how restrictive a strategy it is.

Yes sure it can be falliable because it relies on a luck based first turn 50/50, then 50% of the time it isn't. (more than 50% if you are running sub), but I sure as hell don't see skill in there. Even a small proportion of it.

And also
>doesn't have a centralising effect on teambuilding
>Recommends shit like Own Tempo and Limber.

On the basis of it being uncompetitive, that's a subjective issue. On the one hand, it's never good when people can build gimmicky teams by rote because they'll innately win against people some of the time regardless of skill level - however most gimmicks will win against some people some of the time who are caught at unawares. On the other, a good player should be able to cope and have some aspect of their team to deal with the problem. The luck based argument is also spurious - no one complains when they freeze another pokemon, or when the opponent misses, etc. I understand those strategies aren't based on those aspects (well, not typically), but the same logic applies.

I'm convinced, let's unban moody and evasion

If Swagger is banned, it sets a precedent for a greater level restriction being applied to ordinary gameplay. I therefore wouldn't ban it - I have used the strategy but wouldn't do again just because it's so flawed.

This is a subjective personal opinion, so I won't comment on that. Have it your way.

 

[Toljik]

OH WAIT WE HAVE DA MIGHTY STONFUSK

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not shit on Stunfisk here. That fish was the best paraflinch counter back in Gen 5.