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

[MagikaripIsOP]

This guy turned a game he definitely lost into a win http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/ou-92241278
Ban prankster + confusion inducing move.

 

[blazeVA]

I see, apologies :D The amount of nonsensical posting here is so high that my bullshit detector is on fire and I respond with force to almost everything that appears now.

While I agree there has been a lot of bad posts lately(every person who mentions Numel makes me want to hit my head on the wall), this isn't going to endear you to anyone. At least try to keep it civil please? :3

Now, I must admit that while I am familiar with the concept of Prankster + Swagger teams(and have battled them at times), I never built or played it. So, a fellow user(Suisho) and I built teams of our own. At first, we wanted to prove that Gen III could be a viable comparison to Gen VI now, which is what the first twelve replays are about. The idea is the team is kept constant, but embodies a variety of Pokemon(from aggro such as TTar and Duggy to balanced aspects like Swampert to stall Pokemon like Blissey and Skarmory.) And indeed four electrode seems wrong, but considering the top 4 faster Parafusion Pokemon were either Electrice typed(Electrode, jolteon, Raikou) or so physically frail it didn't matter(Alakazam) it didn't seem to be too much harm. The Gen III heroes are all sets pulled off of the Gen III page for each Pokemon.

Hide

Team Electrode = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze:
Match 1 (21 turns)
Match 2 (64 turns)
Match 3 (13 turns)

Team Electrode = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho:
Match 10 (55 turns)
Match 11 (145 turns)
Match 12 (30 turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho:
Match 4 (82 turns)
Match 5 (48 turns)
Match 6 (49 turns)

Team Klefki = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze:
Match 7 (69 turns)
Match 8 (71 turns)
Match 9 (42 turns)

Team Klefki = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze, Swagger replaced by Confuse Ray:
Match 13 (60-odd turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho, Foul Play replaced by suitable standard moves:
Match 14 (60-odd turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho, Team G3H upgraded to Gen 6 standards and Team Klefki given non-PFP movesets except they do still have Swagger since we want to examine if Swagger alone is too broken:
Match 15 (33 turns)

Now, Suisho is completely, as well as you guys, able to come to your own conclusions. I don't think "Skill" of either of us really comes to play, so don't try to play that angle. We could have done more playtesting...but ehh ^^;. Here are my conclusions:

• The difference between Swagger and other confusion moves is significant. Confuse Ray is far, far less potent than Swagger. Even with confusion's 50/50 chance, Confuse Ray isn't as potent as Swagger.
• Likewise, the set also has difficulties without Foul Play. Butttttt...the set can still work without Foul Play.
• The 50/50 chance from confusion can be significant in determining the outcome of the match, hell, in the last match I was using a Hone Claws Liepard, and I still came very close to winning.
• hazards are de devils. But we already knew this :3 (joking here, might as well keep the conversation somewhat light after all)

So, what do I think? I don't think that prankswag teams will lead to instant victory, nor do I believe that it will give a less skilled player much more of a chance of beating a better skilled player. I believe in that case, the difference in skill often overcomes the difference in luck. But...I can see the argument about the idea of matches coming down to coinflips. I can also see a Pokemon like Thundurus-I abusing Swagger in the future even if only to buy a free turn to Nasty Plot. Do I necessarily like that? I think when it comes down to it, I'm not sure I do. It comes down to what we believe is a healthy level of hax in the game, and I don't feel strongly either way about the issue. I lean towards getting rid of Swagger, but I'm still not convinced myself. You are free to believe what you want, and I don't want to see myself being attacked(because let's face it, the attitude in this thread is hostile) because I don't take exactly one side to the issue. I wouldn't care either way, and while I'd much rather not HAVE to ban anything, if I was given the choice, I would ban.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

(mostly directed at the definition of 'uncompetitive' on the OP)

The game itself is about gaining control of the match and game's events; making sure that your opponent's decisions will have minimal impact while making your own decisions have maximum impact. Arguing about whether a decision or series of decisions removes your opponent's choices or the impact of their choices is therefore pointless; it's a damned good decision or series of decisions if it consistently has that kind of impact.

While the Swagger/Foul Play/Prankster/Substitute/TWave sets are inconsistent given a single case and a single monster, the same can be said for a player running Focus Blast as coverage; it's inconsistent given the single case, but it will win you games when it matters. An entire team based around the SwagPlay sets, covering its inconsistencies and holes while making sure the decision combination has the most iterations to go off, is actually amazingly consistent even compared to common coverage sets

What we're arguing about, then, is whether Klefki, Thundurus, et al. do their jobs too well with the set, not whether it's inconsistent or removes opponents' decisions (which is the point in anything in this game). It isn't any more inconsistent than Flinch sets. If anything, it's more consistent because of much faster kills, Prankster in general, larger versatility, and the higher amounts of general support for it within the game. Is the combination of Swagger, Prankster, and Foul Play too powerful for the game, similarly to Moody, Substitute, and Protect? Or is it only the specific users that are broken; I don't recall Murkrow or Liepard making big splashes last gen.

If the ability combination is determined to be the problem, what part or parts are the broken pieces? Do we underban and risk it coming back? Do we overban and make certain things useless?

If the monsters themselves are determined to be the problem, what about lower tiers? Wouldn't we have to BL2 Purrloin once RU comes up if Purrloin is too powerful for the same reason Liepard is powerful in OU?

I am of the opinion that the main abuse lies with Foul Play in conjunction with stat boosts forced on your opponent. By itself, parafusion is essentially the same as paraflinch, but with Foul Play and the +2 Attack boosts it gains a lot more teeth than it should really have. So, I would choose to ban the combination of Swagger and Foul Play on a single monster; Prankster has many legitimate uses and turns decent monsters into excellent status spreaders, Swagger by itself is actually a good move for monsters in the annoyance archetype (which Prankster is support for), and Foul Play is simply a powerful and versatile move. But that's just my opinion.

 

[JMach]

While I agree there has been a lot of bad posts lately(every person who mentions Numel makes me want to hit my head on the wall), this isn't going to endear you to anyone. At least try to keep it civil please? :3

Now, I must admit that while I am familiar with the concept of Prankster + Swagger teams(and have battled them at times), I never built or played it. So, a fellow user(Suisho) and I built teams of our own. At first, we wanted to prove that Gen III could be a viable comparison to Gen VI now, which is what the first twelve replays are about. The idea is the team is kept constant, but embodies a variety of Pokemon(from aggro such as TTar and Duggy to balanced aspects like Swampert to stall Pokemon like Blissey and Skarmory.) And indeed four electrode seems wrong, but considering the top 4 faster Parafusion Pokemon were either Electrice typed(Electrode, jolteon, Raikou) or so physically frail it didn't matter(Alakazam) it didn't seem to be too much harm. The Gen III heroes are all sets pulled off of the Gen III page for each Pokemon.

Hide

Team Electrode = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze:
Match 1 (21 turns)
Match 2 (64 turns)
Match 3 (13 turns)

Team Electrode = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho:
Match 10 (55 turns)
Match 11 (145 turns)
Match 12 (30 turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho:
Match 4 (82 turns)
Match 5 (48 turns)
Match 6 (49 turns)

Team Klefki = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze:
Match 7 (69 turns)
Match 8 (71 turns)
Match 9 (42 turns)

Team Klefki = Suisho, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Blaze, Swagger replaced by Confuse Ray:
Match 13 (60-odd turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho, Foul Play replaced by suitable standard moves:
Match 14 (60-odd turns)

Team Klefki = Blaze, Team Gen 3 Heroes = Suisho, Team G3H upgraded to Gen 6 standards and Team Klefki given non-PFP movesets except they do still have Swagger since we want to examine if Swagger alone is too broken:
Match 15 (33 turns)

Now, Suisho is completely, as well as you guys, able to come to your own conclusions. I don't think "Skill" of either of us really comes to play, so don't try to play that angle. We could have done more playtesting...but ehh ^^;. Here are my conclusions:

• The difference between Swagger and other confusion moves is significant. Confuse Ray is far, far less potent than Swagger. Even with confusion's 50/50 chance, Confuse Ray isn't as potent as Swagger.
• Likewise, the set also has difficulties without Foul Play. Butttttt...the set can still work without Foul Play.
• The 50/50 chance from confusion can be significant in determining the outcome of the match, hell, in the last match I was using a Hone Claws Liepard, and I still came very close to winning.
• hazards are de devils. But we already knew this :3 (joking here, might as well keep the conversation somewhat light after all)

So, what do I think? I don't think that prankswag teams will lead to instant victory, nor do I believe that it will give a less skilled player much more of a chance of beating a better skilled player. I believe in that case, the difference in skill often overcomes the difference in luck. But...I can see the argument about the idea of matches coming down to coinflips. I can also see a Pokemon like Thundurus-I abusing Swagger in the future even if only to buy a free turn to Nasty Plot. Do I necessarily like that? I think when it comes down to it, I'm not sure I do. It comes down to what we believe is a healthy level of hax in the game, and I don't feel strongly either way about the issue. I lean towards getting rid of Swagger, but I'm still not convinced myself. You are free to believe what you want, and I don't want to see myself being attacked(because let's face it, the attitude in this thread is hostile) because I don't take exactly one side to the issue. I wouldn't care either way, and while I'd much rather not HAVE to ban anything, if I was given the choice, I would ban.

Interesting points. I still don't see a super solid justification for this tactic not needing to be remedied in some way though (sorry if I'm missing it, it's like 4.30am here lol).

Also, I mention Numel because that's how ridiculous this tactic is. I, and I expect I'm not alone, feel that by calling upon the mighty name of Numel, people may start to agree that Prankster + Swagger = Silly. No buenos. :P

 

[blazeVA]

Interesting points. I still don't see a super solid justification for this tactic not needing to be remedied in some way though (sorry if I'm missing it, it's like 4.30am here lol).

Also, I mention Numel because that's how ridiculous this tactic is. I, and I expect I'm not alone, feel that by calling upon the mighty name of Numel, people may start to agree that Prankster + Swagger = Silly. No buenos. :P

That's because I'm ambivalent on the issue. I'm not anti-ban, but neither am I pro-ban. I can relate to it being late though so don't worry. ^^; I don't feel the arguments on either side are strong enough for me, especially after testing, but I do lean towards nipping Swagger in the bud.

 

[JMach]

That's because I'm ambivalent on the issue. I'm not anti-ban, but neither am I pro-ban. I can relate to it being late though so don't worry. ^^; I don't feel the arguments on either side are strong enough for me, especially after testing, but I do lean towards nipping Swagger in the bud.

The only way I can describe it is a little bit cheap. I haven't really been affected by the tactic much at all, but hearing of other peoples' experiences and just SEEING it is enough to leave a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. There aren't many other tactics that leave me feeling the same way.

 

[Suisho]

Banning individual abusers when Swagger is clearly the problem is skirting around the issue as a whole, or you ban every abuser. Ban Swagger, or ban Klefki/Thundurus/Liepard/Sableye/Purrloin/Murkrow/Mega Banette/Tornadus? Obviously the former.

Swagger alone is neither much of a problem nor do I believe it is the problem. If you playtest the following four scenarios, I think you'll see why. (I would encourage everyone reading this post to do so. You needn't take my word for it. You needn't take anyone else's word for it either, pro-ban or anti-ban. These are all things that you can easily test for yourself. And you owe it to yourself to do so.)

1. SwagPlay team vs. a control
2. SwagPlay team with only Swagger swapped out for Confuse Ray vs. the same control as before
3. SwagPlay team with only Foul Play swapped out for some competent means by which to deal damage vs. the same control as before
4. a non-SwagPlay team where three or more creatures run Swagger vs. the same control as before

Playtests with an ADV team* following the first scenario showed that SwagPlay is effective, easy to pilot, but does not guarantee victory against even weakly prepared teams. (In our case, "weakly prepared" was a single Gen 3 Blissey and nothing else. If the Blissey fell, the rest of the team was at the mercy of SwagPlay antics.)

Playtests with an ADV team following the second scenario showed that SwagPlay is crippled without Swagger.

Playtests with an ADV team following the third scenario showed that Parafusion Prankster tactics are severely handicapped without Foul Play.

Playtests with an XY team (the ADV team with upgraded moves) following the fourth scenario showed that Swagger remains ineffectual, even when paired with moves other than Foul Play, Substitute, and Thunder Wave, outside of niche roles as a phazing move and an incapacitating move that buys opportunities to set up and sweep. This is not unlike phazing a Pokémon out by putting it to sleep or putting a Pokémon to sleep for the intended purpose of setting up and sweeping.

In conclusion, playtests showed that Swagger is neither problematic all on its own nor is it the singular root of the problem with Parafusion Prankster & SwagPlay teams. The playtests indicate that if SwagPlay is deemed uncompetitive, it should then either be the combination of Swagger + Foul Play or else the combination of Swagger + Foul Play + Prankster that be banned from OU. Swagger should not be banned by itself. Not only is the move relatively harmless without Foul Play but it has real competitive applications that would be trampled by a blanket ban. Further, it is difficult to justify a blanket ban of confusion-inducing moves or of even Swagger alone without hitting sleep-inducing and paralysis-inducing moves in the crossfire. Banning Swagger on the grounds that it is partly based on elements of chance invites legitimate and concerning comparisons with Spore, Thunder Wave, and other staples of the metagame which are no less a gamble than Swagger is. If Swagger is to be banned, it must not be on the grounds that it is "unfair" or "luck-based". (See discussion below.)

*The ADV team consisted of Tyranitar, Swampert, Celebi, Dugtrio, Skarmory, and Blissey. Everyone was given ADV movesets that you can find on Smogon's ADV encyclopedia. No abilities, attacks, or hold items introduced in Generations 4, 5, or 6 were used.

Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions.

Please remember this definition going forward, though it has been re-posted all too often in this thread...

If this is how we are going to define uncompetitive game aspects, then it is clear that we cannot ban anything on the grounds that it is uncompetitive and uncompetitive only. Because if we do ban things just for being uncompetitive, then we must either ban all uncompetitive game elements or else be labeled inconsistent hypocrites. By the definition provided ("those [actions] that take away [agency from the player]"), sleep, paralysis, flinching, attraction, and confusion are all legal uncompetitive elements in XY OU. All of these take away agency from the player. In order to justify banning Swagger solely on the grounds that it is uncompetitive, we would be forced to also ban Spore (a 100%-accurate sleep-inducing move that removes agency for 1 to 3 turns), Thunder Wave and Glare (100%-accurate paralysis-inducing moves that remove agency 25% of the time until the afflicted Pokémon is healed, faints, or the battle ends), King's Rock (an item which serves no purpose other than to increase the odds of flinch hax), and so much more.

I don't mind using this definition, but it places an onus on pro-ban advocates to do more than identify that Element X is uncompetitive lest we be forced to ban far, far more than was originally intended.

 

[Stallion]

Please ban this uncompetitive piece of shit. Even my stall team containing Blissey (probably the best counter to SwagPlay tactics) had to do a lot of stupid unnecessary switching to get around it. We want to minimize luck in pokemon and having a high chance that most opponents will severely cripple themselves if they win enough coinflips goes against the spirit of everything Smogon has tried to achieve

 

[Chou Toshio]

If this is how we are going to define uncompetitive game aspects, then it is clear that we cannot ban anything on the grounds that it is uncompetitive and uncompetitive only. Because if we do ban things just for being uncompetitive, then we must either ban all uncompetitive game elements or else be labeled inconsistent hypocrites. By the definition provided ("those [actions] that take away [agency from the player]"), sleep, paralysis, flinching, attraction, and confusion are all legal uncompetitive elements in XY OU. All of these take away agency from the player. In order to justify banning Swagger solely on the grounds that it is uncompetitive, we would be forced to also ban Spore (a 100%-accurate sleep-inducing move that removes agency for 1 to 3 turns), Thunder Wave and Glare (100%-accurate paralysis-inducing moves that remove agency 25% of the time until the afflicted Pokémon is healed, faints, or the battle ends), King's Rock (an item which serves no purpose other than to increase the odds of flinch hax), and so much more.

I don't mind using this definition, but it places an onus on pro-ban advocates to do more than identify that Element X is uncompetitive lest we be forced to ban far, far more than was originally intended.

You're wrong. The issue is not just ANY "removal of autonomy" but THE DEGREE of removal of autonomy-- because degree is subjective, we have the need for discussion threads like this.

While there is always luck involved in Pokemon, the problem is the degree to which control is taken away from the player. Removal of autonomy is the key to an uncompetitive tiering decision or clause.


Note: the word "degree" as there are many game aspects that remove autonomy, but the problem is degree of removal (Moody / Double Team remove more autonomy than Quick Claw or fast U-Turn/Volt Switch).

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

Swagger alone is neither much of a problem nor do I believe it is the problem. If you playtest the following four scenarios, I think you'll see why. (I would encourage everyone reading this post to do so. You needn't take my word for it. You needn't take anyone else's word for it either, pro-ban or anti-ban. These are all things that you can easily test for yourself. And you owe it to yourself to do so.)

1. SwagPlay team vs. a control
2. SwagPlay team with only Swagger swapped out for Confuse Ray vs. the same control as before
3. SwagPlay team with only Foul Play swapped out for some competent means by which to deal damage vs. the same control as before
4. a non-SwagPlay team where three or more creatures run Swagger vs. the same control as before

Playtests with an ADV team* following the first scenario showed that SwagPlay is effective, easy to pilot, but does not guarantee victory against even weakly prepared teams. (In our case, "weakly prepared" was a single Gen 3 Blissey and nothing else. If the Blissey fell, the rest of the team was at the mercy of SwagPlay antics.)

Playtests with an ADV team following the second scenario showed that SwagPlay is crippled without Swagger.

Playtests with an ADV team following the third scenario showed that Parafusion Prankster tactics are severely handicapped without Foul Play.

Playtests with an XY team (the ADV team with upgraded moves) following the fourth scenario showed that Swagger remains ineffectual, even when paired with moves other than Foul Play, Substitute, and Thunder Wave, outside of niche roles as a phazing move and an incapacitating move that buys opportunities to set up and sweep. This is not unlike phazing a Pokémon out by putting it to sleep or putting a Pokémon to sleep for the intended purpose of setting up and sweeping.

In conclusion, playtests showed that Swagger is neither problematic all on its own nor is it the singular root of the problem with Parafusion Prankster & SwagPlay teams. The playtests indicate that if SwagPlay is deemed uncompetitive, it should then either be the combination of Swagger + Foul Play or else the combination of Swagger + Foul Play + Prankster that be banned from OU. Swagger should not be banned by itself. Not only is the move relatively harmless without Foul Play but it has real competitive applications that would be trampled by a blanket ban. Further, it is difficult to justify a blanket ban of confusion-inducing moves or of even Swagger alone without hitting sleep-inducing and paralysis-inducing moves in the crossfire. Banning Swagger on the grounds that it is partly based on elements of chance invites legitimate and concerning comparisons with Spore, Thunder Wave, and other staples of the metagame which are no less a gamble than Swagger is. If Swagger is to be banned, it must not be on the grounds that it is "unfair" or "luck-based". (See discussion below.)

*The ADV team consisted of Tyranitar, Swampert, Celebi, Dugtrio, Skarmory, and Blissey. Everyone was given ADV movesets that you can find on Smogon's ADV encyclopedia. No abilities, attacks, or hold items introduced in Generations 4, 5, or 6 were used.

If this is how we are going to define uncompetitive game aspects, then it is clear that we cannot ban anything on the grounds that it is uncompetitive and uncompetitive only. Because if we do ban things just for being uncompetitive, then we must either ban all uncompetitive game elements or else be labeled inconsistent hypocrites. By the definition provided ("those [actions] that take away [agency from the player]"), sleep, paralysis, flinching, attraction, and confusion are all legal uncompetitive elements in XY OU. All of these take away agency from the player. In order to justify banning Swagger solely on the grounds that it is uncompetitive, we would be forced to also ban Spore (a 100%-accurate sleep-inducing move that removes agency for 1 to 3 turns), Thunder Wave and Glare (100%-accurate paralysis-inducing moves that remove agency 25% of the time until the afflicted Pokémon is healed, faints, or the battle ends), King's Rock (an item which serves no purpose other than to increase the odds of flinch hax), and so much more.

I don't mind using this definition, but it places an onus on pro-ban advocates to do more than identify that Element X is uncompetitive lest we be forced to ban far, far more than was originally intended.

Except, with all your examples, your opponent keeps his agency because there are viable ways to get around them. Why do you think we wasted so much time establishing that there are so little ways to counter swag play (if you didn't read that part, fine, but don't get mad if I dislike you wasting our time)? Swag play removes our "agency" to not have a 50% chance to hurt ourselves, so we need to ban it. End of story. Can we please decide how we ban it and move on!

 

[Wise Walrus]

I was attempting to reply to some guy who posted stating swagger is 'one of the best status moves in the game'. I'm guessing he deleted his post or something lol. I agree with you on all points.

It was me and it is. As far as prankster is concerned it is one if the best status moves, which is the whole reason we are having this discussion. If it wasn't there wouldn't be 60 pages of people whining about it. I would put it behind wow and twave and that's it. This whole debate is just ridiculous. EVERYONE wants swag play gone, nobody is arguing for it to stay as far as I can tell. All we are saying is that the 3 suggested bans are not satisfactory, and we are providing alternatives. Prankster and swagger alone is not even close to ban worthy. Also to whichever idiot compared swagger to evasion, you might be the most useless human being ever. Swagger is risk/reward, It can pay off or bite you in the ass, hell you could even miss. There is literally no downside to evasion, It's 100% luck and only in your favor.

Honestly this is exhausting. How people can bitch about confusion on its own after 6 generations and no change boggles my mind. There is literally one exact move set where it is actually a problem and banning the move altogether is beyond overkill. For the second time, all you have to do is split thunder wave and swagger on prankster users and the problem is solved.

 

[fenyxofshadows]

Swag play removes our "agency" to not have a 50% chance to hurt ourselves, so we need to ban it. End of story. Can we please decide how we ban it and move on!

Fire Blast removes my Caterpie's agency to not be dead, so we need to ban it. End of story. Can we please decide how we ban it and move on!

Simply saying that something removes choices is not a valid argument in and of itself; the entire game is about making decisions that limit your opponent and benefit you. It is the ease or difficulty of making these choices (easy since next to nothing is immune to Confusion and Prankster = priority), the impact of these choices (45% chance of a free turn, 90% chance to increase opponent's Attack by 2 stages), and how well you can capitalize on them (Foul Play essentially being +2 with a single Swagger).

 

[TaBuu]

Honestly I feel like everything has been said at this point. Swagger + Prankster is ban worthy in my eyes and therefore needs to leave.

 

[Suisho]

You're wrong. The issue is not just ANY "removal of autonomy" but THE DEGREE of removal of autonomy-- because degree is subjective, we have the need for discussion threads like this.

First, you keep saying "autonomy" but I believe you mean to say "agency." Autonomy refers to, among other things, the capacity for an individual to make informed, un-coerced decisions or for a political entity to govern itself. Agency refers to one's capacity to act. Agency is what we're discussing here.

Second, it's not exactly persuasive to me nor conducive to the discussion to just write me off with a terse "You're wrong."

And third, the degree of agency removed from the player by confusion is not significantly different than that removed from the player by sleep.

• Confusion: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Sleep: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Confusion: Each turn, a separate RNG determines whether you get your action for this turn or whether you smack yourself in the face. The odds are 50/50.
• Sleep: There is no additional RNG. If you haven't woken up yet, you get no action this turn. Guaranteed odds.

The thing is, the first confusion RNG is a wash given the second. You really don't care whether you break out of the confusion or not other than for the fact that it means that the second RNG is no longer being rolled. But all you really care about is that second RNG. That's the one that's determining your loss of agency. The first RNG has no direct bearing on your agency whatsoever.

So in both the cases of sleep and confusion, we have a Pokémon which is denied its action for that turn depending on the outcome of an RNG. One turn goes by ... two turns go by ... three turns may go by and you're still asleep. Or? You may wake up immediately, who's to say. The same goes for confusion. One turn goes by ... two turns go by ... three turns go by and you're still confused. Or? You may snap out of confusion immediately. Further? You may, whilst confused, still get your action for that turn.

That's the funny thing with sleep and confusion: in many scenarios, sleep is actually the more severe status affliction to be saddled with. It doesn't go away when you switch out. You're guaranteed not to get a turn whilst you remain asleep. At least with confusion, it is entirely possible that you attack once, twice, three times in a row despite being confused and then you snap out of confusion, having never once smacked yourself in the face. That can happen. That does happen. Just look at the battle replays provided earlier for ample proof. You'll never get that with sleep: sleep guarantees inaction until the status affliction goes away.

Earlier in this thread, pro-ban members have mockingly implied that Swagger is such a crappy move that we should ban it because nobody even uses it. What does that tell you about the relative differences in strength between a move like Confuse Ray and a move like Sleep Powder to rob the player of his agency? What does it say for our metagame that people openly mock the idea of trying to phaze someone out with confusion so they can set up a Dragon Dance sweep but we all completely respect and agree with the concept of putting someone to sleep and then DDing up?

 

[Sinning]

It was me and it is. As far as prankster is concerned it is one if the best status moves, which is the whole reason we are having this discussion. If it wasn't there wouldn't be 60 pages of people whining about it. I would put it behind wow and twave and that's it. This whole debate is just ridiculous. EVERYONE wants swag play gone, nobody is arguing for it to stay as far as I can tell. All we are saying is that the 3 suggested bans are not satisfactory, and we are providing alternatives. Prankster and swagger alone is not even close to ban worthy. Also to whichever idiot compared swagger to evasion, you might be the most useless human being ever. Swagger is risk/reward, It can pay off or bite you in the ass, hell you could even miss. There is literally no downside to evasion, It's 100% luck and only in your favor.

Honestly this is exhausting. How people can bitch about confusion on its own after 6 generations and no change boggles my mind. There is literally one exact move set where it is actually a problem and banning the move altogether is beyond overkill. For the second time, all you have to do is split thunder wave and swagger on prankster users and the problem is solved.

Yeah, hi. I'm that useless human being. You're more lost than Helen Keller in a circular room if you can't see the similarities between Evasion strategies and Swag Play.

 

[Wise Walrus]

Yeah, hi. I'm that useless human being. You're more lost than Hellen Keller in a circular room if you can't see the similarities between Evasion strategies and Swag Play.

Yeah hi. The comparison wasn't between swagplay and evasion, it was between swagger, the move, and evasion. FYI, there isn't one

 

[Sinning]

Yeah hi. The comparison wasn't between swagplay and evasion, it was between swagger, the move, and evasion. FYI, there isn't one

I believe it's fair to assume in this case that the person who compared swagger to evasion meant to say the strategy as a whole. Since neither of us can probably provide a direct quote, there's no point to argue over it. If the person did genuinely mean only swagger, then we can easily throw their opinion out of the window.

Would you say that Swag Play is very different from Evasion, however?

 

[Wise Walrus]

I believe it's fair to assume in this case that the person who compared swagger to evasion meant to say the strategy as a whole. Since neither of us can probably provide a direct quote, there's no point to argue over it. If the person did genuinely mean only swagger, then we can easily throw their opinion out of the window.

Would you say that Swag Play is very different from Evasion, however?

I actually could find the quote as it's on the previous page. Regardless, yes the strategy as a whole is comparable. I just don't want to see swagger banned, or even prankster swagger, when that really isn't the problem.

 

[Punchshroom]

I just don't want to see swagger banned, or even prankster swagger, when that really isn't the problem.

You can't deny that Prankster Swag is a big contributor to the problem by itself. A good number of people see that it is Pranskter Swagger plus the number of abusable moves to be the issue, which is why they suggested complex bans. That said, Prankster Swagger (or Prankster confusion in general) by itself is still somewhat 'uncompetitive', but not otherwise unhealthy for the meta, which is why I can see it possibly staying, but I know there would be people who would still be strongly against the idea of forcing a coinflip onto the opponent.

 

[Sinning]

I actually could find the quote as it's on the previous page. Regardless, yes the strategy as a whole is comparable. I just don't want to see swagger banned, or even prankster swagger, when that really isn't the problem.

I agree completely. I've said countless times throughout this thread, and also explained in great detail why the problem is Swagger + Foul Play on the same set. It seems we have nothing to argue here.

 

[Wise Walrus]

You can't deny that Prankster Swag is a big contributor to the problem by itself. A good number of people see that it is Pranskter Swagger plus the number of abusable moves to be the issue, which is why they suggested complex bans. That said, Prankster Swagger (or Prankster confusion in general) by itself is still somewhat 'uncompetitive', but not otherwise unhealthy for the meta, which is why I can see it possibly staying, but I know there would be people who would still be strongly against the idea of forcing a coinflip onto the opponent.

This is honestly exhausting. You absolutely right, it's prankster swagger plus other moves that make this strategy so awful. Not prankster swagger itself. Prankster isn't uncompetitive. Neither is foul play. Neither is thunder wave. Neither is swagger. Neither is any combination of two, or even of three. It's only all 4 of them together where things get bad enough to warrant a ban.

 

[the-bumper-car]

Just ban Swagger already. As a phazing move, you're better off using Roar, Whirlwind, Yawn, Circle Throw, or Dragon Tail, which are far more reliable phazers.

 

[Ajwf]

Sure, if you're using a pokemon that can afford -7 priority consistently...

If you're going to argue against my point of using confusion as a phazing tactic, you're going to actually have to prove to me that you know the first thing about phazing. Of those options, all but one have negative priority. Only two hit through subs/protect, meaning that only those can prevent the opponent from just subbing on you to prevent the relatively weak phazing moves from forcing them out as they're forced to move last. Circle throw has awful distribution and I'm fairly certain that stall doesn't use many yawn users outside of the eevee line.

But seriously. I'm sure that you can speak to the uses of confusion (or any move) for phazing given what you've shown me in that post.

 

[Kairyu_Gen1]

First, you keep saying "autonomy" but I believe you mean to say "agency." Autonomy refers to, among other things, the capacity for an individual to make informed, un-coerced decisions or for a political entity to govern itself. Agency refers to one's capacity to act. Agency is what we're discussing here.

Second, it's not exactly persuasive to me nor conducive to the discussion to just write me off with a terse "You're wrong."

And third, the degree of agency removed from the player by confusion is not significantly different than that removed from the player by sleep.

• Confusion: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Sleep: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Confusion: Each turn, a separate RNG determines whether you get your action for this turn or whether you smack yourself in the face. The odds are 50/50.
• Sleep: There is no additional RNG. If you haven't woken up yet, you get no action this turn. Guaranteed odds.

The thing is, the first confusion RNG is a wash given the second. You really don't care whether you break out of the confusion or not other than for the fact that it means that the second RNG is no longer being rolled. But all you really care about is that second RNG. That's the one that's determining your loss of agency. The first RNG has no direct bearing on your agency whatsoever.

So in both the cases of sleep and confusion, we have a Pokémon which is denied its action for that turn depending on the outcome of an RNG. One turn goes by ... two turns go by ... three turns may go by and you're still asleep. Or? You may wake up immediately, who's to say. The same goes for confusion. One turn goes by ... two turns go by ... three turns go by and you're still confused. Or? You may snap out of confusion immediately. Further? You may, whilst confused, still get your action for that turn.

That's the funny thing with sleep and confusion: in many scenarios, sleep is actually the more severe status affliction to be saddled with. It doesn't go away when you switch out. You're guaranteed not to get a turn whilst you remain asleep. At least with confusion, it is entirely possible that you attack once, twice, three times in a row despite being confused and then you snap out of confusion, having never once smacked yourself in the face. That can happen. That does happen. Just look at the battle replays provided earlier for ample proof. You'll never get that with sleep: sleep guarantees inaction until the status affliction goes away.

Earlier in this thread, pro-ban members have mockingly implied that Swagger is such a crappy move that we should ban it because nobody even uses it. What does that tell you about the relative differences in strength between a move like Confuse Ray and a move like Sleep Powder to rob the player of his agency? What does it say for our metagame that people openly mock the idea of trying to phaze someone out with confusion so they can set up a Dragon Dance sweep but we all completely respect and agree with the concept of putting someone to sleep and then DDing up?

Sleep and confusion have 4 huge differences, the one you mentioned about sleep guaranteeing no action, the chance for confusion to cause damage to the afflicted, sleep has viable counter play including an already existing ban allowing you to overcome it with reasonable surety, and the fact that there's no priority sleep inducers out there.

the-bumper-car , while we can ban swagger, doing so without acknowledging that we're banning something that is not ban worthy is not a good idea. If we do it in the name of simplicity, fine, but not in the name of laziness (and I realize how stupid that sounds, but I have to find some way to justify it)

 

[Arash]

And third, the degree of agency removed from the player by confusion is not significantly different than that removed from the player by sleep.

• Confusion: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Sleep: Each turn, an RNG determines whether you break free or not. Until you break free, the status remains.
• Confusion: Each turn, a separate RNG determines whether you get your action for this turn or whether you smack yourself in the face. The odds are 50/50.
• Sleep: There is no additional RNG. If you haven't woken up yet, you get no action this turn. Guaranteed odds.

That's the funny thing with sleep and confusion: in many scenarios, sleep is actually the more severe status affliction to be saddled with. It doesn't go away when you switch out. You're guaranteed not to get a turn whilst you remain asleep. At least with confusion, it is entirely possible that you attack once, twice, three times in a row despite being confused and then you snap out of confusion, having never once smacked yourself in the face. That can happen. That does happen. Just look at the battle replays provided earlier for ample proof. You'll never get that with sleep: sleep guarantees inaction until the status affliction goes away.

I promise you that if any prankster-mon got a sleep move that smogon would have banned it ASAP

As it is now, the only one that does is Whimsicott with Grass Whistle, which ironically has an accuracy of 55% (the same percentage that a mon can hit through the initial swagger)