And I get high on the ladder how, exactly, when my W/L record is completely even since I'm coinflipping my matches? This makes absolutely no sense. And there are SwagPlay teams higher in the ladder, that's the entire reason this discussion is taking place.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)
- Thread starter haunter
- Start date
- Status
And I get high on the ladder how, exactly, when my W/L record is completely even since I'm coinflipping my matches? This makes absolutely no sense. And there are SwagPlay teams higher in the ladder, that's the entire reason this discussion is taking place.
You are totally exaggerating the problem. Last time I checked the ladder it wasn't like every player or even a quarter of the players used Swagger. So no, you will be able to get high despite the ocassional SwagPlayer. Also, remember that we don't even know what "high" means with the new ladder system (or we would be able to get 1800-like statistics).
Someone got a high enough ranking on the suspect ladder to qualify with a SwagPlay team. That seems like a good barometer of "high" to me. And broken things don't have to be omnipresent to still be broken. The fact that they exist and are allowed is enough to merit their banning. MKhan didn't need to be on every team in order to get banned. The potential for this to occur exists and is very real, and it's not competitive to play in a metagame where that potential exists.
I think we have agreed that SwagPlay isn't "broken". Broken things are banned independently of their usage because someone can consistently win if they use them. Anyway, did the swagplayer reaching requirements got them without skill? We also know that skill is obviously a good addition to be successful with the strategy.
This is just a rhetoric argument, substitute broken for uber/uncompetitive/unfair/unhealthy/whatever if it makes you feel better. Don't ignore the point of my post based on one word choice, it's a shitty argument.
Broken does not have to be defined by being inherently very powerful.
Smogon bans things because they hurt the meta game as a whole.
He reached reqs on the suspect ladder while using the absolute worst version of the team, which is a full 6 swagplay mons. (His team was Liepard, Purrloin, Murkrow, Thundy I, Klefki, Sableye)
Unsure about the OU ladder reqs.
Smogon bans things for a number of reasons. I only mentioned brokeness due to its being compared with Mega-Khan.
Disprove that SwagPlay can enable a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player? There is no disproving that because it's a fact: SwagPlay has the potential to allow the less skilled to triumph over the more skilled. However, this is true of every strategy under the Sun. Imagine if someone like yourself were to say these statements in other debates:
- "Unless you can disprove the evidence that Deoxys-S can allow a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player without any use of skill, then your argument holds no water."
- "Unless you can disprove the evidence that SubSeeding can allow a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player without any use of skill, then your argument holds no water."
- "Unless you can disprove the evidence that Choice Scarf can allow a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player without any use of skill, then your argument holds no water."
So the burden should not be to disprove that SwagPlay can ever be used by a less-skilled player to defeat a more-skilled player. The burden should be to prove that simply using SwagPlay does not ensure victory. If it guarantees victory every single time, even in inept and inexperienced hands, then it's patently unfair. If it promotes victory without guaranteeing it, even in skilled and experienced hands, then it's no different in this one regard than the myriad other strategies we all make use of to boost our chances of winning.
Skill not only involves teambuilding, but also the actual playing. Also, there are worse teams than that. I repeat it, did he show being skill-less in his laddering?
Just shovin' in my two cents. Read this and think them over.
Ah, hax. Everybody loves hax. Pokemon is a game that, by its nature, will never be based entirely on skill. It's the entertaining (read: infuriating) factor that spins new stories for players to tell, leads them to imagine, predict, expect the best and the worst of scenarios...
Alright, enough with the romantic thought. We've established that, in Pokemon, hax is here to stay; as much as we hate it, it's still a part of the game. While Smogon encourages a fair and balanced metagame, it shies away from the blurry line of game mechanic altering (otherwise, we'd have no crits at all). But SwagPlay goes beyond ordinary hax and even the natural gambles of fair play; SwagPlay is bringing hax to its limits and testing what it can accomplish. What, then, are we supposed to do about a strategy centered on the abuse of game mechanics which are otherwise not overwhelmingly troublesome? That's a tough question to answer, especially to one as inexperienced with "SwagPlay" teams as I.
I know what you're going to ask: "Well, what that hell are you doing in this discussion post, then?"
I'm just here to offer what I believe to be my best contribution to the decision-making process. Upon closer examination, the Endless Battle Clause, a recent ban that was also the topic of much debate, is actually very similar to the proposed "SwagPlay Clause." (Swagster Clause? Prankswag clause? Whatever.) At the heart of the Endless Battle Clause was the decision to prevent the abuse of certain game mechanics otherwise relatively harmless. (I mean, Leppa Berry? Come on.) It was the combination of these mechanics, the perfect mixture, that caused the end result to be much, much more monitor-flippingly painful than the sum of its parts.
I know that Smogon strives for simplicity in its rules, but sometimes simplicity just doesn't cut it when dealing with such combinations. Thunder Wave is a legitimate strategy; Prankster is a legitimate strategy. Klefki is a legitimate Pokemon. Heck, even Swagger has its uses (albeit limited ones) outside of SwagPlay. Mix those key ingredients together, however, and you've got a hax-stretching monster on your hands.
So, in the end, I think that Smogon should ban the usage of Swagger in conjunction with Prankster (option 3). As the recent Endless Battle Clause demonstrated to us, sometimes simplicity must be foresaken for the sake of fair play and the sanity of all.
Ah, hax. Everybody loves hax. Pokemon is a game that, by its nature, will never be based entirely on skill. It's the entertaining (read: infuriating) factor that spins new stories for players to tell, leads them to imagine, predict, expect the best and the worst of scenarios...
Alright, enough with the romantic thought. We've established that, in Pokemon, hax is here to stay; as much as we hate it, it's still a part of the game. While Smogon encourages a fair and balanced metagame, it shies away from the blurry line of game mechanic altering (otherwise, we'd have no crits at all). But SwagPlay goes beyond ordinary hax and even the natural gambles of fair play; SwagPlay is bringing hax to its limits and testing what it can accomplish. What, then, are we supposed to do about a strategy centered on the abuse of game mechanics which are otherwise not overwhelmingly troublesome? That's a tough question to answer, especially to one as inexperienced with "SwagPlay" teams as I.
I know what you're going to ask: "Well, what that hell are you doing in this discussion post, then?"
I'm just here to offer what I believe to be my best contribution to the decision-making process. Upon closer examination, the Endless Battle Clause, a recent ban that was also the topic of much debate, is actually very similar to the proposed "SwagPlay Clause." (Swagster Clause? Prankswag clause? Whatever.) At the heart of the Endless Battle Clause was the decision to prevent the abuse of certain game mechanics otherwise relatively harmless. (I mean, Leppa Berry? Come on.) It was the combination of these mechanics, the perfect mixture, that caused the end result to be much, much more monitor-flippingly painful than the sum of its parts.
I know that Smogon strives for simplicity in its rules, but sometimes simplicity just doesn't cut it when dealing with such combinations. Thunder Wave is a legitimate strategy; Prankster is a legitimate strategy. Klefki is a legitimate Pokemon. Heck, even Swagger has its uses (albeit limited ones) outside of SwagPlay. Mix those key ingredients together, however, and you've got a hax-stretching monster on your hands.
So, in the end, I think that Smogon should ban the usage of Swagger in conjunction with Prankster (option 3). As the recent Endless Battle Clause demonstrated to us, sometimes simplicity must be foresaken for the sake of fair play and the sanity of all.
Last edited:
No. Skill is not a requirement for being successful with SwagPlay. People are confusing skill with knowing how to play the strategy correctly. Skill in Pokemon comes in two ways:
1) Pre-battle during the team building phase
2) During the battle when selecting moves
SwagPlay teams pretty much run the same 6 things always, and when things are swapped out it's because they're interchangeable and it makes no difference to the overall strategy. Ergo, there's no skill involved in the team building aspect of SwagPlay.
When it comes to actually utilizing the strategy, there is always a logically correct next move to choose. You are never using prediction, sacks, surprise movesets, early risks for future rewards, etc. to outwit and outplay your opponent. You are always doing the exact same thing: Confusion -> Paralysis -> Sub > Foul Play. The order may get slightly mixed depending on what you're up against, but for the most part it's going to be the same thing over and over. There is no skill involved in this. Do not confuse someone that doesn't understand the strategy doing things in the wrong order as someone that's less skilled. It's like FEAR - if I don't use Quick Attack after Endeavor, that doesn't mean I'm an unskilled player, it means I don't understand how the strategy I'm using works.
I can't find quite the right phrase to articulate this, but hopefully I've made my point. If SwagPlay is actually being used the way that makes it broken, it does not require skill.
EDIT: Maybe I should have phrased this differently - skill is not only not a requirement, it is not a factor. It doesn't determine the success of SwagPlay. The only thing that determines the success of SwagPlay is the RNG.
Last edited:
No. This argument is completely and utterly wrong and makes no sense when applied to any of the other things that have been banned. Obviously not every single person that ever put a Mega Lucario on their team won every single battle they played...
You totally missed what I asked. I said that it was a "good addition", not a "requirement". Heck, one doesn't even need skill to use any team at all. Just copy an RMT or something. Again, did the one who got the requirements was skill-less when playing?
Okay I understand what you're trying to say but the truth is youre wrong. All of those things cannot allow a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player, as the more-skilled player will be able to counter these strategies or pokemon. Swagger cannot be countered by careful play, as the element of luck can always act against your favour. If they get up entry hazards you can't even pp stall them. It is true that skilled users of SwagPlay will reach greater success than less-skilled users with the same strategy, but that's just cause they add skill on top of the already powerful luck aspect.
Clearly this strategy is not broken, as you can just as easily get lucky and never hit yourself or snap out quickly. However, in my eyes this is just as uncompetitive as spamming OHKO moves or using minimize over and over.
50% chance for the opponent to hit themself in confusion is almost exactly the same as a 50% chance to miss after the target uses minimize. There is a precedent, and we should follow it. EDIT: its actually not 50% for minimize so this is even worse.
How do you evaluate someone's skill level when using a strategy that doesn't require skill? And if you think you can just grab any random RMT and win even if you're a bad player, you're sorely mistaken. Good (non-SwagPlay) teams still require good prediction, knowing your calcs, knowing when you can afford to sacc something, etc. to be effective, like I said in my post.
I don't know how you expect me to say that the guy with the SwagPlay team was skilled or unskilled. As I've pointed out, there's nothing for the player to do to exhibit skill. What would you qualify as that player showing skill?
Let's say there was a move that was just like Sand Attack, but lowered the opponent's accuracy 2 stages instead of 1. Would it be broken or uncompetitive?
Anyone can just pick up a SwagPlay team, good or bad, and expect to rack up a few wins here and there. Anyone. This essentially throws away the 'skill' aspect of competitive Pokemon right out the window, which Smogon does not condone. This would be akin to the evasion clause argument. Sure, there are some ways to combat evasion (as does ways to counter SwagPlay), but the verdict is this: no actual skill is required to just spam the same move sequences over and over again, hope to get lucky, and acquire the win.
Prankster Swagger brings the 'luck over skill' aspect into further light. The fact of the matter is that while SwagPlay can be pretty unbearable to deal with, it's not like some of the Swagger users are completely helpless outside of using Foul Play to attack: Thundurus being the main offender since it still has great power, with Sableye being close behind with Night Shade. Granted, the threat level of Klefki and Liepard will severely diminish, but that doesn't really hinder some of the viable Prankster Swagger users. Banning SwagPlay does not mean you do not have to deal with Prankster Swagger anymore, but the question now is: would Prankster Swagger still be as bad now that they can't smash you with your own attack boosts (keep in mind they are still not totally helpless)?
Prankster Swagger brings the 'luck over skill' aspect into further light. The fact of the matter is that while SwagPlay can be pretty unbearable to deal with, it's not like some of the Swagger users are completely helpless outside of using Foul Play to attack: Thundurus being the main offender since it still has great power, with Sableye being close behind with Night Shade. Granted, the threat level of Klefki and Liepard will severely diminish, but that doesn't really hinder some of the viable Prankster Swagger users. Banning SwagPlay does not mean you do not have to deal with Prankster Swagger anymore, but the question now is: would Prankster Swagger still be as bad now that they can't smash you with your own attack boosts (keep in mind they are still not totally helpless)?
My lord i wasnt even going to post in this thread anymore, but for fuck sake you just intentionally ignored an important part of what Jukain posted just to make a point
Thats the thing that people are trying to get through anti-ban users's head. Bad players can beat good players without using any sort of skill, all they need to do is rely on rng, and this has absolutely no place in a competitive enviroment. Its the exactly same thing with moody, its the exactly same thing with evasion, both of which are and will remain banned forever. Stop comparing it to any other strategy, theres no comparison to be made here. HO, stall, BO, whatever else you want, none of this are lucky based strategies, all of them can be defeated with skill, this is not true to swagplay. Its inherently uncompetitive because of it being solely lucky based and thats why it should be banned.
Last edited:
You're misrepresenting what I wrote. I'm not suggesting that in order to ban something you must prove that it 100% guarantees victory. I did write that if something 100% guarantees victory then it deserves a ban, but that should be a given and I hardly think you want to argue that point.
What I wrote to Jukain is that the challenge he presented Slayer95 with was, as written, unreasonable. Any strategy in the history of Pokémon can be shown to enable the unskilled to triumph over the skilled. All you need do is provide one simple replay. "Look here! Kevin956C just defeated the tournament champion using [Strategy X]! :o That proves it's broken!" No, it doesn't. :| One citable loss does not prove that a mechanic or strategy is broken; and challenging someone to prove that no such losses exist else his arguments hold no water is unreasonable. Drizzle in conjunction with Swift Swim, Sand Rush Excadrill, and Blaziken were not banned in the early days of Gen 5 OU because no one was able to show that they never empower victory for unskilled players: they were banned because copious amounts of evidence pointed to them empowering victory for unskilled players time and time again.
It's you who are claiming that a skill-less person abused SwagPlay to get requirements, so...
And no, I don't think that you can just grab a team and win, but that the teambuiding phase isn't the best part to show skill.
Let's have a ladder where nothing is banned, since we can't seem to consistently draw a line when it comes to fair versus unfair strategies. Swag play is no different than evasion or OHKO moves, and to allow this "strategy" is to allow a huge contradiction in terms of how we believe pokemon should be played. How is it reasonable to ban evasion but not this? Not only does this strategy create a sort of evasion through the use of confusion, paralysis, and substitute, but it's also incredibly offensive through the use of foul play. Evasion is more fair than swag play.
You're literally asking me to show evidence of something NOT existing. I don't know what else I can say to you besides what I already have, which is that SwagPlay is just cycling the same 4 moves until you win. I've listed several things that show a player's skill: their ability to predict, their knowledge of calcs, their foresight to the remainder of the match to balance risk vs. reward early on, etc. None of these things are present or necessary for a player using SwagPlay. What other evidence do you need?
Also, teambuilding is absolutely critical to skill. I'd say it's pretty much even with your ability to battle, because a lot of your choices in battle are going to be based on what you know about your team from the research you did while building it.
- Status