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

[Kairyu_Gen1]

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?

You're absolutely right in that skill can contribute to swagplay. I usually play with an espeon, so when fighting swagplay, my opponent always has to judge how I'll use it, and a skilled player will usually beat me while an unskilled player will usually rage quit.

But saying that there's no skill in team building is pretty incorrect. Sure you can copy a team, but half of team building is devising strategies to take on specific threats to that team. Even if you do copy a team, pregame strategizing is still sort of skill based that you can't necessarily copy

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.

A strategy can't let a lower skilled player beat a higher one. If someone doesn't adequately prepare for a specific strategy, then they've been outskilled. Swagplay CAN'T be prepared for, only endured.

 

[SaberSeven]

I did some fooling around on an alt with a SwagPlay team. Went 13-3 with a few RQs. One notable battle I had featured a Weavile. I foolishly switch my Excadrill in derping on Ice Shard being a thing on it when my Liepard was taken out. I should have switched into Scizor and went for the safe Bullet Punch to KO it. I wound up winning that match because the Weavile, while attempting to go for Ice Shard, hit itself in confusion. If it didn't, Scizor and a couple of low health Pokemon vs Aegislash would not have been a favorable matchup for me. Testing this for myself, this strategy tends to be very luck reliant (as probably a lot of people have said already). I was for the complex ban on banning Prankster + Swagger and I still remain that way since it gives the user a free turn of confusion. In conclusion, to anyone I have faced and annoyed with this "strategy", I apologize.

 

[Slayer95]

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.

Easier said than done. Ideally, we would get a ladder like the current + SwagPlay banned, and a ladder with only Ubers Clause. However, the Ubers for both ladders would be different (Minimize Chansey, I am looking at you). And the alternative ladder would have no Smogon to do proper suspect tests. That's why in every discussion on bans we can only get an agreement rather than a splitting.

 

[Sinning]

Easier said than done. Ideally, we would get a ladder like the current + SwagPlay banned, and a ladder with oly Ubers Clause. However, the Ubers for both ladders would be different (Minimize Chansey, I am looking at you). And the alternative ladder would have no Smogon to do proper suspect tests. That's why in every discussion on bans we can only get an agreement rather than a splitting.

Yeah it was sarcasm. My point is that we should be consistent when we make rules. It's just silly to allow certain haxxy things while banning others.

 

[Duck Chris]

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?

Well think of that but then if you miss you also damage yourself for an average of 50%. Maybe then yeah it would be, especially if they can then smack you for a similar amount of damage if you stay in.

 

[Ajwf]

When we're talking about luck here in context, please try to remember the different stages of your 'coinflip' argument. As it stands, it isn't compelling as you're telling me that the game is a coinflip. I'm telling you that your ability to move on a turn is a coinflip (much like paraflinch, but again because prankster doesn't get flinch priority... let alone "Oh just outspeed it" and leave stall to that one). Here's the thing: The game is roughly 50/50 only for offensive pokemon. For every other pokemon, and a competent player with a few defensive pivots (2), your chances of winning is not nearly as close to a coin flip as you try to insinuate.

So please, don't try to pull false advertisements on me. I have to vote in elections, I deal with those pre-election commercials. Trust me when I say the amount of exaggeration here is about equal.

 

[Suisho]

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

There's no need for personal attacks. Haunter expressly said in the OP post that they have no place in this discussion. Please. We're all friends here. We all want the best, healthiest meta even if we don't all agree on what that is or what it takes to get there.

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.

I understand Jukain's stipulation about the complete lack of skill. But I ask you: is it really so much more skilled to lead with a Politoed in BW1, switch to a Kingdra, apply a Dragon Dance, and Waterfall away? Is it really so much more skilled to lead with a Hippowdon or a Tyranitar in BW1, switch to an Excadrill, and spam Iron Head or Earthquake? I thought it was almost hyperbolic to even list the Choice Scarf as an example, but I did so precisely to make clear the point that I did appreciate Jukain's stipulation about no skill being required to use SwagPlay: there can be no less skill involved than slapping a Choice Scarf onto some slow but powerful creature and saying "GO FORTH AND DESTROY!"

In play tests I've conducted with Swagplay teams, I have found that they require more skill than many of their most ardent detractors are implying they require. They're good, certainly, and they're very easy to pick up and learn. Certainly they require less skill than the very best stall teams of Generation 4. And they have an enormous advantage over teams that lack defensive cores with low attack. But these SwagPlay teams do not guarantee victory, and they come nowhere near guaranteeing it against teams with able defensive cores in competent hands. The SwagPlay player must know when to switch and when to stay put; and if he should stay put, he must know whether to go for a sub, go for an attack boost / restore confusion, or go for a Foul Play. These may sound like simple concerns, and they are! But they're no more simple than the ordinary decisions we make when deciding what to do with our Pokémon most of the time. That's the problem I have with many of the detractors' attitudes in this thread: they are deliberately misrepresenting SwagPlay as some unholy guarantee of victory for the user the likes of which the community has never seen.

 

[PrincessDerpy]

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?

How could he demonstrate skill or lack thereof when every member of that team bar Sableye had a moveset of Twave/Sub/Swagger/Foul Play? And the only reason Sableye didn't have the full set is he can't have Twave and Prankster at the same time. The only point of 'skill' that could possibly be displayed with that team is avoiding hitting magic bounce/magic coat with swag or t-wave, and that's hardly a major concern when neither is terrifically popular to begin with.

 

[Ryolain]

When we're talking about luck here in context, please try to remember the different stages of your 'coinflip' argument. As it stands, it isn't compelling as you're telling me that the game is a coinflip. I'm telling you that your ability to move on a turn is a coinflip (much like paraflinch, but again because prankster doesn't get flinch priority... let alone "Oh just outspeed it" and leave stall to that one). Here's the thing: The game is roughly 50/50 only for offensive pokemon. For every other pokemon, and a competent player with a few defensive pivots (2), your chances of winning is not nearly as close to a coin flip as you try to insinuate.

So please, don't try to pull false advertisements on me. I have to vote in elections, I deal with those pre-election commercials. Trust me when I say the amount of exaggeration here is about equal.

Defensive/stall teams have an easier time with SwagPlay due to better Att/Def ratios pursuant to confusion damage, sure. But you're still flipping a coin, you're just flipping it more times. If something with high Att and low Def gets tails on the first coin flip, it probably only has one more flip left before it kills itself or dies to Foul Play. Just because Chansey gets to flip the coin 30 times before it dies and therefore has a better chance of the game stopping before the outcome is unfavorable doesn't mean it's not still playing the game.

To be honest I'm gonna assume your opinion is slightly skewed on this since I know you're heavy into stall, which doesn't struggle nearly as much with SwagPlay. It certainly can't claim to counter it completely, though.

 

[SmashBrosBrawl]

There's no need for personal attacks. Haunter expressly said in the OP post that they have no place in this discussion. Please. We're all friends here. We all want the best, healthiest meta even if we don't all agree on what that is or what it takes to get there.

I understand Jukain's stipulation about the complete lack of skill. But I ask you: is it really so much more skilled to lead with a Politoed in BW1, switch to a Kingdra, apply a Dragon Dance, and Waterfall away? Is it really so much more skilled to lead with a Hippowdon or a Tyranitar in BW1, switch to an Excadrill, and spam Iron Head or Earthquake? I thought it was almost hyperbolic to even list the Choice Scarf as an example, but I did so precisely to make clear the point that I did appreciate Jukain's stipulation about no skill being required to use SwagPlay: there can be no less skill involved than slapping a Choice Scarf onto some slow but powerful creature and saying "GO FORTH AND DESTROY!"

In play tests I've conducted with Swagplay teams, I have found that they require more skill than many of their most ardent detractors are implying they require. They're good, certainly, and they're very easy to pick up and learn. Certainly they require less skill than the very best stall teams of Generation 4. And they have an enormous advantage over teams that lack defensive cores with low attack. But these SwagPlay teams do not guarantee victory, and they come nowhere near guaranteeing it against teams with able defensive cores in competent hands. The SwagPlay player must know when to switch and when to stay put; and if he should stay put, he must know whether to go for a sub, go for an attack boost / restore confusion, or go for a Foul Play. These may sound like simple concerns, and they are! But they're no more simple than the ordinary decisions we make when deciding what to do with our Pokémon most of the time. That's the problem I have with many of the detractors' attitudes in this thread: they are deliberately misrepresenting SwagPlay as some unholy guarantee of victory for the user the likes of which the community has never seen.

There was no personal attack so please dont even start it. First of all, all the stuff you mentioned (swift swim, excadrill) were banned so i dunno how is that helping your case, second you cant just slap a choice scarf in something and brainless spam moves, everytime you choose a move to lock yourself in youre risking giving the opponent momentum, theres absolutely no luck involved here, both players need to use their skill to decide whats the best play to do. Swagplay on the other hand completely throws that out of the window by forcing the opponent to fight through the hax instead of trying to outplay you like it would normally happen in a match. No one is saying it guarantes a victory, nothing guarantes victory except team matchup (which is a problem we cant really fix), what people are saying is that swagplay removes skill from the match and turns it into a luck based mission for both players. Its not competitive, its not healthy, its not balanced.

 

[D-Ssain]

I think a medium ground between the two sides can be a Clause that only allows two Prankster Pokemon on one team. This will prevent people from using entire Prankster teams and will bring creativity to the table. Only one or two Prankster Pokemon require you to build a team that when the two Prankster Pokemon die, you have to something to fall back on. I also just faced an entire Prankster team, and even though I won, I now believe that if the team only had two Pokemon with Prankster it would've been more controllable.

 

[Slayer95]

How could he demonstrate skill or lack thereof when every member of that team bar Sableye had a moveset of Twave/Sub/Swagger/Foul Play? And the only reason Sableye didn't have the full set is he can't have Twave and Prankster at the same time. The only point of 'skill' that could possibly be displayed with that team is avoiding hitting magic bounce/magic coat with swag or t-wave, and that's hardly a major concern when neither is terrifically popular to begin with.

Well, Suisho has just mentioned a few things. Also, predictions are key to counter Lum and/or Substitute users.
And you are just addressing the difficulty of measuring skill, which is an interesting point, but for another story.

 

[Ajwf]

Ryolain

Oh hell, you realize that chansey would have to flip that coin nearly 50 times without one lucky role to die, right? Please understand that this ISN'T an issue for defensive teams. Don't try to make it one for us when there are very few ways to make it like that. And yes, Stall can claim to completely counter Swagplay on the grounds they'd run out of PP before killing chansey. Please understand that I'm simply saying acting like it's 50/50 wins all the time against any style is false and people shouldn't be spreading false beliefs.

 

[asbdsp]

Defensive/stall teams have an easier time with SwagPlay due to better Att/Def ratios pursuant to confusion damage, sure. But you're still flipping a coin, you're just flipping it more times. If something with high Att and low Def gets tails on the first coin flip, it probably only has one more flip left before it kills itself or dies to Foul Play. Just because Chansey gets to flip the coin 30 times before it dies and therefore has a better chance of the game stopping before the outcome is unfavorable doesn't mean it's not still playing the game.

To be honest I'm gonna assume your opinion is slightly skewed on this since I know you're heavy into stall, which doesn't struggle nearly as much with SwagPlay. It certainly can't claim to counter it completely, though.

You'll almost never get unlucky enough to lose to swagplay if you run stall.

Edit: Yeah, there's also pp stall, which we're not above "resorting" to for winning.

 

[rachet67]

I think a medium ground between the two sides can be a Clause that only allows two Prankster Pokemon on one team. This will prevent people from using entire Prankster teams and will bring creativity to the table. Only one or two Prankster Pokemon require you to build a team that when the two Prankster Pokemon die, you have to something to fall back on. I also just faced an entire Prankster team, and even though I won, I now believe that if the team only had two Pokemon with Prankster it would've been more controllable.

Kinda like a clause that you can have one uber on a team? Complex bans are avoided because people think they may eventually lead to clauses such as these.

 

[Ryolain]

Ryolain

Oh hell, you realize that chansey would have to flip that coin nearly 50 times without one lucky role to die, right? Please understand that this ISN'T an issue for defensive teams. Don't try to make it one for us when there are very few ways to make it like that. And yes, Stall can claim to completely counter Swagplay on the grounds they'd run out of PP before killing chansey. Please understand that I'm simply saying acting like it's 50/50 wins all the time against any style is false and people shouldn't be spreading false beliefs.

Fine, I'll concede. It turns the game into coin flips against any offensive team - though note that I'm not just talking HO, I'm talking any team that's not stall or fully defensive. Is that not still a reason to ban it?

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

I think a medium ground between the two sides can be a Clause that only allows two Prankster Pokemon on one team. This will prevent people from using entire Prankster teams and will bring creativity to the table. Only one or two Prankster Pokemon require you to build a team that when the two Prankster Pokemon die, you have to something to fall back on. I also just faced an entire Prankster team, and even though I won, I now believe that if the team only had two Pokemon with Prankster it would've been more controllable.

This doesn't address the main problem of swag play being luck dependent and uncompetitive at all. I wish people would stop bringing it up because it makes about as much sense as saying "since you can only have 1 mega, it's all right for them to be OP"

 

[En Passant]

For those of you arguing that stall beats it: This means that everyone HAS to run stall if they want to get around it, which then classifies it as over-centralizing and thus still uncompetitive.

Pitching my vote for the complex ban of Prankster + Swagger.

 

[Ajwf]

Fine, I'll concede. It turns the game into coin flips against any offensive team - though note that I'm not just talking HO, I'm talking any team that's not stall or fully defensive. Is that not still a reason to ban it?

I'm sure I can find a case where a monster tore through styles not bulky offense or HO... However, people's opinions in this thread tend to be like broken arrows (and not napalm, mind you, literal broken arrows). You can't simply miss the target and blame a piece of the puzzle for the whole issue, if this really is an issue (aka Confusion moves/Swagger are not the issue. Otherwise, you'd see Swagger talonflame).

 

[Ryolain]

I'm sure I can find a case where a monster tore through styles not bulky offense or HO... However, people's opinions in this thread tend to be like broken arrows (and not napalm, mind you, literal broken arrows). You can't simply miss the target and blame a piece of the puzzle for the whole issue, if this really is an issue (aka Confusion moves/Swagger are not the issue. Otherwise, you'd see Swagger talonflame).

So are you just saying you don't want Confusion/Swagger banned, but you'd support it in combination with Prankster or Prankster + Twave or Prankster + Foul Play? I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

 

[asbdsp]

Fine, I'll concede. It turns the game into coin flips against any offensive team - though note that I'm not just talking HO, I'm talking any team that's not stall or fully defensive. Is that not still a reason to ban it?

Honestly, if you run even 2-3 walls and special attackers you're stacking the odds pretty heavily against the swagplayer. Which is why I haven't really been impressed by people claiming they went 10-0 on the ladder or whatever running swagplay. Honestly, I'm just going to assume they were running against otherwise bad teams/players that are ubiquitous, lower in the ladders and especially on ubers. The ability of a swagplay team to get reqs on the suspect ladder seems more problematic, but remember, reqs were lowered to 1400 on that ladder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you get that in like 15-20 games?

 

[ItoI6]

ok someone asked for some replays so i got here are 2. i didnt save many replays unfortunately lol. i got 2 accounts at 1900+ now. i dont have any that show me beating full stall with this team but i have done it before its just difficult

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-91893757
http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-87955343

 

[asbdsp]

For those of you arguing that stall beats it: This means that everyone HAS to run stall if they want to get around it, which then classifies it as over-centralizing and thus still uncompetitive.

Pitching my vote for the complex ban of Prankster + Swagger.

The more walls/special attackers you run, the more likely you are to beat it. So its not a clear cut stall=hard-counter, everything else=50% coin flip.

Its the nature of beating it that's so gut-wrenching. Even when you know you're in a good position you realize that to some extent you have to rely on the RNG gods to ultimately give you the opportunity to win. But I'm not sure that annoyance is a sufficient factor to ban something that once again, just looks like another shitty gimmick.

 

[Ajwf]

So are you just saying you don't want Confusion/Swagger banned, but you'd support it in combination with Prankster or Prankster + Twave or Prankster + Foul Play? I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

I have no real care what happens to the combinations and complex bans as long as it stays away from banning confusion inducing moves. I'm not going to argue into these points for either side other than to point out occasional fallacies and the likes.

 

[Seven Lions]

I think a medium ground between the two sides can be a Clause that only allows two Prankster Pokemon on one team. This will prevent people from using entire Prankster teams and will bring creativity to the table. Only one or two Prankster Pokemon require you to build a team that when the two Prankster Pokemon die, you have to something to fall back on. I also just faced an entire Prankster team, and even though I won, I now believe that if the team only had two Pokemon with Prankster it would've been more controllable.

The SwagPlay team with 2 abusers are the ones that usually do the best. Got to 1700+ with a 1 minute swag-play team with Mega-Lucario.
Klefki / Thundurus / Deoxys-D / Bisharp / Ditto / Mega-Lucario.