You skipped the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy and tried to make it "Slipping the opponent Cyanide". Nice job aiming at the true source of the argument, the opponent, instead of all these distractions with prankster and swagger.
-
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
You skipped the "Poisoning the Well" fallacy and tried to make it "Slipping the opponent Cyanide". Nice job aiming at the true source of the argument, the opponent, instead of all these distractions with prankster and swagger.
I vote for banning all 100% confusion inducing moves Swagger/Flatter/Confuse ray, theres any other ?
you wanna use klefki to priority shields, thunderwave or spikes ? no problem to me, now, this bullshit swagger + paralyze + foul play is disgusting. Liepard at least can die with one mach punch, klefki has one of the best typing and good att.
you wanna use klefki to priority shields, thunderwave or spikes ? no problem to me, now, this bullshit swagger + paralyze + foul play is disgusting. Liepard at least can die with one mach punch, klefki has one of the best typing and good att.
I don't really consider running Cleric Chansey / Regenerator Slowbro to be an inferior strategy, and I fail to see why Chansey/Slowbro would make a team "vastly inferior" against everything else, especially because they're quite valid OU pokemon.
But this isn't getting anywhere. I'll return when I've finished some calculations and probability distributions.
But a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation already gives me some basic results. On turn 1, Klefki has a 45% chance of strictly boosting the attack of his opponent (AND doing nothing), and a 10% chance that Swagger misses. Even if you lose your turn in the remaining 45% of the time, the odds don't seem to be in favor of Klefki here in the long run. But I'll come back with calculations later.
Odds are against the PrankSwag player on Turn 1, and I doubt they improve.
Thunder wave.
I wish people actually read the thread instead of repeating the same flawed point over and over.
No one cares if the odds are below 50%. The mere fact that you have a match completely determined by probability is enough to make swagplay uncompetitive.
Which occurs on a second turn, which has some probability (I didn't calculate yet) of curing your confusion.
An offensive Sub Thunderus has been mentioned in this thread as well as a good check to PranksterSwag teams. No T-Wave issues, Prankster Substitute at high speed to beat out any Prankster Swaggers, and high attack to take out the rest. I don't think I need to elaborate (especially since this thread has already explored this `mon)
And yet... Scald is a true and valid threat. I don't think we're gonna be banning Scald any time soon. Or quickclaw...
Last edited:
Scald doesn't have the power to turn the entire match into a game of roulette like Swagplay does. Swagplay makes all match-ups pointless, ignores most team strategies and turns the game into something where the only thing that matters is chance.
If the enemy sends something that your scald user can't deal damage to or something that doesn't mind burn, the scald user will have to switch out. But swagplay users don't care. You can send an Arceus-Fire into their Klefki and the strategy will stay the same. 100% luck.
I welcome the respected Chou Toshio to the discussion!
I will like to dispute the point that "degree of competitiveness" being totally subjective. I refer to the OP's definition of uncompetitiveness:
Given this unofficial definition, uncompetitiveness by definition is quantifiable. We can determine exactly how much player agency is removed in any situation, along with any iterated situation. Thus, these other factors can be taken into account when calculating the removal of agency and a majority of uncompetitiveness is objective. The subjectiveness comes from the relative effectiveness of those strategies. The tiering decision making and the response from the community is subjective, however the uncompetitiveness by definition is quantifiable.
I personally believe that the response from the community is resultant from a combination of removal of agency AND effectiveness. If a strategy results in an extreme amount of removal of agency (Funbro), it will be hated even without being particularly effective. If a strategy is very effective with a lesser amount of removal of agency, it will also be hated.
I request that the OP be amended to reflect the change of discussion from Swagger being entirely luck reliant to include uncompetitiveness as a banning decision.
Last edited:
The argument that "counters exist" and comparing things like scald to the entire strategy of swag play is just poor.
The existence of counters is not an argument. Kyogre counters exist, mega lucario counters exist, evasion counters, ohko counters, exist. Yet none of these things belong in the meta.
To argue that scald's chance of burning is the same thing as inflicting paralysis and confusion in order to prevent the opponent from having a turn, so you can outspeed and KO with foul play is completely laughable.
Scald is fair because it is a legitimate tactic, used to cripple physical sweepers. Burn is not comparable to paralysis + confusion in tandem with foul play. Burn can be countered, healed, and does not at any point remove a player's ability to still play the game. Therefore, scald is competitive and fair. While paralysis can be healed through clerics, and confusion healed by switching, I am not asserting that either of these things are a problem, even when used together. The problem with this strategy is when you add substitute, foul play, and the ability to always move first through prankster into the mix.
And let's be real, what is a Chansey or slowbro going to do to a specially defensive klefki behind a substitute? Saying that these are counters is a pathetically bad attempt on your part.
The existence of counters is not an argument. Kyogre counters exist, mega lucario counters exist, evasion counters, ohko counters, exist. Yet none of these things belong in the meta.
To argue that scald's chance of burning is the same thing as inflicting paralysis and confusion in order to prevent the opponent from having a turn, so you can outspeed and KO with foul play is completely laughable.
Scald is fair because it is a legitimate tactic, used to cripple physical sweepers. Burn is not comparable to paralysis + confusion in tandem with foul play. Burn can be countered, healed, and does not at any point remove a player's ability to still play the game. Therefore, scald is competitive and fair. While paralysis can be healed through clerics, and confusion healed by switching, I am not asserting that either of these things are a problem, even when used together. The problem with this strategy is when you add substitute, foul play, and the ability to always move first through prankster into the mix.
And let's be real, what is a Chansey or slowbro going to do to a specially defensive klefki behind a substitute? Saying that these are counters is a pathetically bad attempt on your part.
Banning a move solely on the grounds that it is uncompetitive (something which, as defined by staff for the purposes of the discussion, removes agency from the player on the receiving end) sets a precedent that it is okay to ban any element of the game solely on these grounds. That the move's popularity, age, accuracy, or other secondary effects do not matter. That simply establishing its uncompetitiveness is good enough to make a case for banning some element.
The reason this precedent is concerning is that there are popular moves which are far worse culprits of denying the opponent his or her agency than confusion-inducing moves are. As explored here in this post, sleep is on pretty even ground with confusion (if not more uncompetitive on average). What makes Swagger stand out isn't the confusion alone but, amongst other things, its +2 buff to Attack that can be stacked. People who advocate for a Swagger ban, I am saying, need to point to more than its simple uncompetitiveness to justify their calls for a ban. They need to accurately explain why they feel Swagger is worse than (say) Spore or Thunder Wave. That's why I wrote:
Because if we say that denying a player his agency is grounds enough for a ban, then we must also ban any other moves, items, or abilities which deny agency, i.e. are uncompetitive (as defined).
If we ban Swagger because it is less popular than Spore or Thunder Wave are, and if the ban is justified primarily or exclusively on the grounds that Swagger makes games "uncompetitive," then in the future when people call for Spore's or Thunder Wave's or King Rock's head on a silver platter and say "Ban this! It too denies agency! It too is uncompetitive!", if the staff retorts, "Well yes ... but y'see, these moves we actually like. These moves are our friends. We didn't care about ickle Swagger so we had no problem pushing him off a cliff. But Spore is too gosh durn adorable to kill," then it damages our ability to take Smogon rules seriously anymore. The moment you go down that dark path of making arbitrary rules to suit arbitrary whims, all is lost. Smogon is excellent precisely because it strives not to make rules arbitrarily or lightly. Smogon is excellent precisely because it only bans things which (as objectively as possible) can be shown to deserve being banned. If players can show that Tactic A is an even greater offender than Tactic B and thus deserves to be banned for the same reasons as Tactic B was banned but the staff refuses, it damages the case that Smogon rules are written objectively and in full pursuit of the fairest, strongest meta.
That's all I was saying, Kairyu. That if people want to throw Swagger under the bus, for the sake of the entire Smogon project they had better come up with more reasons than "It's uncompetitive and that's good enough for me" lest we be forced to follow through on that logic and ban half the status-afflicting move library.
In terms of comparing sleep to the swag play strategy, it's actually a fair comparison.
They both remove players' ability to play the game to a pretty large degree.
The difference? We have a clause to prevent sleep from being an issue, but no clause to prevent swag play from being abused.
We have no clause to prevent Thunder Wave from being an issue. As both a semi-permanent speed damaging move and one that also relies on luck to give you free turns in the same way that Swagger does, it is just as if not more disruptive to a player's decisions.
The goal of using Swagger in this case is to force your opponent to gain Attack for the use of Foul Play; essentially Screech with the added Confusion side effects. The free turns are just a bonus; any sufficiently bulky monster (like most Klefki sets due to resists) would not need them. If a simple ban of the move Swagger is done, there is grounds, under the same reasoning (free turns generated as a side effect of an intended effect) to ban Thunder Wave, Glare, and Stun Spore.
Pokemon is a game that is primarily centered around limiting your opponent and opening up as many options for you as possible. When you switch in a counter to their monster, that's precisely what you're doing. Banning a move simply for being good at removing your opponent's options? You might as well ban Outrage for being a stop to any non-Steel/Fairy monster.
Last edited:
Which is why I do not support outright banning swagger.
We don't have an Attraction or Paralysis clause either.
The point with Swagger is that any problems it may have -- whether you are for or against banning it -- extend beyond its mere denial of agency. Therefore, it's important to point to more than its mere denial of agency as grounds for a ban. And if it's decided that Swagger is not imbalanced without Foul Play (which playtests indicate to be the case), then it makes the smartest sense to ban the offending pair rather than ban either of the two individual elements globally. You can't say "We're banning just Swagger, but we're doing so for reasons that are only relevant when Swagger is used in conjunction with some other move(s) or ability(-ies)." That invites future global bans of Spore and Thunder Wave should a specific strategy ever evolve which uses these effect-inducing moves to the same degree of efficacy that SwagPlay makes use of Swagger. (Example 1: if Game Freak invents a field move like Sticky Web with the principal effect of Bad Dreams and we decide that this Spore+BadWeb combo is too powerful to be allowed to remain in OU. Example 2: if Game Freak invents an ability which says that, while the abilitymon is out, the odds of not getting to act when paralyzed become 50% instead of 25% and it's decided that this is too powerful to be allowed to remain in OU.)
4 SpA Slowbro Flamethrower vs. 252 HP / 252+ SpD Klefki: 102-122 (32 - 38.3%) -- 2.5% chance to 3HKO after Leftovers recovery
Chansey Seismic Toss vs. 252 HP Klefki: 100-100 (31.4 - 31.4%) -- guaranteed 4HKO after Leftovers recovery
4- Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Slowbro: 56-66 (14.2 - 16.7%) -- possible 9HKO after Leftovers recovery
4- Atk Klefki Foul Play vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Eviolite Chansey: 5-7 (0.7 - 0.9%) -- possibly the worst move ever
Both `mon can consistently break a sub, Foul Play is lulzy and Confusion damage is similarly low. Slowbro regenerates 30% of its HP whenever it switches out (and also loses confusion). Chansey Natural-cures T-Wave and can potentially perform cleric duty with Heal Bell / Aromatherapy. Even ignoring Flamethrower / Seismic Toss, switching back and forth between both of these `mon allows you to PP Stall that Klefki dead. So what is the problem here?
Last edited:
If you really believe that people use Swagger primarily for raising the opponents attack and that confusion is a side effect, then you should get on the ladder and educate yourself. On that note, people use Foul Play because it works well alongside Swagger, people don't use Swagger to boost Foul Play's power. If you can't grasp this (I could imagine seeing the things you believe) then look at Mandibuzz. Uses Foul Play as a standard move. Pretty much nobody is going to waste a moveslot for Swagger alongside it. Then look at Klefki or Sableye, who run Swagger on their SubSwagger sets (obviously). Foul Play is just the next best thing to run after Substitute. Is this really so difficult? -_- It's no rocket science.
The problem is that Klefki is more likely to 9HKO Slowbro before Slowbro is allowed four moves without being disturbed - one to break the sub, three to have a 2.5% chance at killing Klefki.
That's a problem.
Also, I'd like to address the argument of "it's not strong enough" or "it's not used enough" to matter.
This is of little consequence. If this strategy awards an inferior player a single win, ever, over a superior opponent, then we must ban it. Smogon is about making this game competitive. If we're going to make it competitive, we can't avoid banning things because "oh, it only unfairly knocked one player out of a tournament, so it's okay." We aim to give everyone fair competition, so even if this strategy only steals one win, it is still a problem when it comes to creating a fair game for all.
Last edited:
Ok, cool. You bring up some very good points.
I will say that smogon has shown to defy precedent in favor of being reasonable in the past (look at how different the swift swim and sand rush bans were), so I doubt sleep bans will ever be a thing, but you're right that an outright ban of swagger is a shortsighted move
Yeah, I believe that each individual part of this strategy is fine on its own. Even confusion plus paralysis is an acceptable combination. My problems with the strategy are swagger in combination with foul play, and I posted that way earlier in the thread. I think Swagger is fine to keep around, as it is not the problem. I'm also against bans for convenience's sake. I'd much rather have a complex ban than create a situation similar to what happened with the endless battle clause.
WTF is this argument? Slowbro has access to Regenerator and Slack Off. Klefki isn't going for a 9HKO, he has to assume that Slowbro is too stupid to not switch out for +30% HP or get confusion-haxxed 9 turns in a row to prevent Slack Off.
And we all know that is impossible. (Confusion hax cannot prevent the Slowbro player from simply switching out for +30% HP)
And dude, I have half a mind to step up to your insane statement that a 4HKO is more likely than a 9HKO from Klefki anyway. Its called the binomial number distribution, but I don't think you even have done any math on this subject.
How is Swagger inherently more of a problem than Thunder Wave, though? There is a very strong parallel to be drawn here, regardless of how you use the moves. The combination was effectively neutered when it was tested with Confuse Ray, or when non-Foul Play moves were used. Parafusion isn't the problem; fast parafusion was present in Gen III without any problems. The problem is the forced +2 Attack combined with Foul Play; essentially using priority Screech with a 45% flinch chance.
If something "counters" another thing, why would it be forced to switch out? Regenator Slowbro, then, is not a counter. It just keeps you in the game, yet you are still totally under your opponent's control (until you waste 100+ turns trying to stall them out, just for them to switch to another prankster user and start the cycle over). It is not reasonable to suggest that Slowbro is a "counter."
On the same note, it's also not reasonable to suggest that, given enough iterations, Slowbro will get attacks in. Every time it does, that's less time Klefki can attack and more time it has to spend patching up its Substitutes (or re-iterate Swagger). Eventually you'll get 2 hits in, and Klefki can't recover outside of Leftovers and Draining Kiss.
But will those hits accomplish anything when you factor in your own confusion damage and foul play? I'd argue that it isn't reasonable to say that Slowbro could stay in and beat Klefki in this situation. Of course, we're not factoring in switching here, which, if Slowbro is truly a counter, would not have to do. Also, patching up substitutes is of little consequence when you have leftovers and Slowbro is forced to switch out. Even when the Klefki must make another substitute, it does not stop applying pressure. The player who is using Klefki is still in complete control of the situation.
Are you seriously suggesting that Slowbro with Slack Off will die to a 9HKO from Foul Play?
"Forced Out" my ass.
- Status