I used to run Umbreon and, more recently, Mandibuzz with SwagPlay to check offensive threats. Anyway, what matters isn't what people think they get when using it, but what they actually get when using it.
-
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.
SwagPlay, evaluating potential bans (basic definition of "uncompetitive" in OP)
- Thread starter haunter
- Start date
- Status
I used to run Umbreon and, more recently, Mandibuzz with SwagPlay to check offensive threats. Anyway, what matters isn't what people think they get when using it, but what they actually get when using it.
They don't actually get a team that checks offensive threats. They get a team that plays a gambling game with offensive threats and happens to have a slightly higher chance of winning the coin flip, but it's still a coin flip. Checking doesn't mean gambling, it means it can either reliably revenge or reliably stop certain sets. SwagPlay doesn't do anything reliably enough to be considered a true check.
Make player A -who runs SwagPlay- battle player B -who is skilled- battle each other enough times. Player B will overall win more often than not. That's enough imo.
If a pokemon with enough defense uses Swagger (e.g. Umbreon or Mandibuzz), whatever the result of the "coin flip" is, it will crush its paper-thin-defense opponent with Foul Play. That's reliable enough to be considered a check under your definition, with the bonus that the swagger user might remain undamaged.
If they're playing a tournament, player A only needs to win once to knock out player B. And I'm not really interested in having my ladder rating trashed by a bad streak of SwagPlay coin flips, even if "eventually" it will statistically average out. Also averaging out still doesn't really accurately reflect the player's skill, it's one thing if out of 100 battles I lost 5 because a crit KO'd something that should have lived but to lose 45-50 of those battles because my opponent used a purely luck based strategy? No, that is not competitive or healthy for the metagame.
a) SwagPlay pretty much never involves Umbreon or Mandibuzz because they lack Prankster and they're not Deo-S.
b) What does having high defense have to do with using Foul Play?
Other elements of chance are not relevant to SwagPlay, when it is not only a coinflip but also a biased coinflip. Pokemon with the SwagPlay strategy can go for Swagger given a forced switch (which isn't that hard to get with a Pokemon like Klefki or Thundurus), and Sub until the foe is hit by confusion. In just two turns of using Substitute, the coinflip becomes very heavily biased towards the user. Add Thunder Wave to the mix, and parafusion ensues. The difference with this parafusion is that Swagger does way more damage than any other confusion move, as it increases Attack, making its effect much more significant and noticeable. Confuse Ray is not uncompetitive because even if the foe is hit in confusion, it isn't that big of a deal, as there's no Attack increase to enhance the damage. It doesn't have the same implications and effects as Swagger.
So, let me make this clear: SwagPlay is not a beneficial strategy.
With all due respect, this mentality has zero relevance to the uncompetitiveness of SwagPlay. You are using a strategy on a Pokemon without Prankster that's based on a coinflip (though biased) to check offensive threats. This is a flatly bad idea. The only implications of SwagPlay are in the uncompetitive manner being discussed by literally everyone else in this thread.
So, let me make this clear: SwagPlay is not a beneficial strategy.
How is this enough? Stone Cold was bs'd out of an OST run because of SwagPlay, an opponent he would have absolutely crushed otherwise (as shown by his performance in the first battle). THE_IRON_KENYAN got suspect reqs with SwagPlay. Statistics are completely and utterly immaterial when the opportunity for the less-skilled player to beat the more-skilled player by no fault of the more-skilled player and no displays of skill by the less-skilled player, and this has occurred. Do you want a metagame where this is possible? Because I sure as hell don't.
Then it could be a ruleset for tournaments only, just like in SPL Bright Powder, Lax Incense, Sand Veil and Snow Cloak are forbidden while in PS not.
In the ladder, remember that the other players will also have to deal with bad streaks. And "having your ladder rating trashed" doesn't mean anything.
Also, if you dig in the post by Antar that I am quoting, you will find out that your true rating can only be determined in an uncertainty range (see Glicko). That range can well cover any bad streak.
I already refuted that while you were writting your post.
This is the crux of the whole thing, IMO. Frankly, I don't even play OU anyone (randbats are way more fun) and when I was playing regularly I never encountered this strategy often enough to be annoyed by it. But the fact that there is not just a chance, but a significant probability that my rank is going to be screwed over by someone who gets lucky is BS. Back when there were only 1 or 2 Pokes that could do this it maybe wasn't as relevant, but now that you can easily build a whole team around it and we've got Klefki who's bulky and can even add Spikes into the mix to rule out switching as a counter, it's too likely to screw with legitimate players.
SwagPlay per definition doesn't require Prankster. I am discussing SwagPlay in general right now, not PranksterSwag.
High defense means that you may well take the +2 Atk hit your opponent uses and survive to attack with Foul Play, therefore using a 100% reliable strategy.
This isn't Star Wars, but thanks for the platitudes, Obi-Wan. Whether you want to talk about it in terms of rank or not, the point is that the *significant* possibility of losing numerous battles due to luck (again, not just a battle here and there because of a random bad crit or extra sleep turn) is unhealthy for the idea of a competitive metagame in which skilled players intend to win over less skilled players. If you're just here for your amusement, go play an unranked custom battle with no rules.
I am not the one who is joking about Star Wars to ridiculize my point, and fucking Custom Battles of all things.
Slayer95, I don't think you understand what any of us are getting at. This is not something that can be argued in statistics, because that's not the point. The point is that SwagPlay is an uncompetitive strategy. Whatever, by your assessment it could have ~legitimate~ applications, I'm not going to argue this anymore, but the fact that SwagPlay has uncompetitive applications entirely outweighs these /competitive/ applications (that don't exist but whatever). Unless you can disprove the evidence that this can allow a less-skilled player to beat a more-skilled player without any use of skill, then your argument holds no water in this debate.
Anyways, I see a lot of people discussing the problem (and for good reason), but not the solution so much. The options presented in the OP are as follows:
Anyways, I see a lot of people discussing the problem (and for good reason), but not the solution so much. The options presented in the OP are as follows:
The third option is kinda silly, imo, because this is a wide-ranging strategy that would result in a lot unnecessary bans. This would be like banning every Swift Swimmer from BW OU. So, let's ignore it and move onto the first two options: Swagger simple ban, and Swagger + Prankster complex ban. I believe in this case that outright banning Swagger is the best thing we can do. Swagger + Prankster addresses the 'broken' problem, sure, but the fact remains that Swagger is still an uncompetitive move that creates unfair coinflips. Is it not still uncompetitive for a speedy Pokemon like Thundurus to carry it as a filler without using Prankster, and to force the same coinflips? I definitely think so. Removing Prankster + Swagger removes the obvious problem, but not the entire problem, and for that reason I think a full Swagger ban is warranted in order to keep this uncompetitiveness out of OU entirely.
Sorry, what I got from your point was a "it's all just for fun, who cares about ranks?" message. My point was that this is a competitive site and if you just want to do things for fun and think ranks aren't important and the idea of someone losing battles to non-skilled players due to 50/50 probability is fine, then you're in the wrong place.
Ranks are important, but losing points is okay. It's just showing that your previous rank might not have been correct. And if it was, you will prove it by winning battles later.
And losing points because you couldn't break through paralysis and confusion is ok too?
Lol k.
Suppose this scenario with two possiblities:
1) A uses Swagger on B. B succeeds attacking A. A survives, uses Foul Play and kills B.
2) A uses Swagger on B. B hurts itself. A uses Foul Play and kills B.
In this scenario, A uses Swagger competitively. Note that this didn't require Prankster. However, as with any status move, Prankster can increase the viability of this technique.
How are you going to win battles later if those battles are all coin flips? The average result for 100 coin flips isn't 99 heads and 1 tails. It's 50 heads and 50 tails. You'll end up exactly where you started, statistically speaking. Things like crits and normal paralysis fall under what you're talking about because if I'm truly a stronger player, one game that I lose to luck when the rest of that match was based on skill will ultimately be overwhelmed by all the other games I win that aren't based on luck. If all my games are completely based on luck, that is not competitive and I will not statistically make it up by winning battles, because in terms of probability I'm going to win as many as I lose.
So the assumption was that player B was too dumb to switch in a pokemon that can OHKO the prankster, even at +2. Okay.
This is more like what happens:
1. A uses swagger on B. B, at +2, OHKOs A. B's pokemon proceeds to sweep through the rest of the team, hence winning the match by no other factor than luck on the dice roll that is swagger.
2. A uses swagger on B. B, at +2, hurts itself. A uses substitute. Now A is able to utilize an extremely biased coinflip in parafusion, in addition to have his own safety net of a substitute, thanks exclusively to his luck on the dice roll that is swagger.
No skill required, QED.
If you are high in the ladder, you will not find battles where all of them are coin flips, precisely because its expected result is 50. Your argument defeats itself this time.
Mods have said a global confusion ban isn't going to happen, so no need to theorymon.
Or player A outplayed B to force him to switch in that pokemon. It can also happen that B has a lot of weakened pokemon that will march in to be crushed by their own Atk stat.
No, it would not.
Actually if you read in the last two or three pages, Haunter said that it was possible, though sub-optimal.
- Status