I really don't this plan is going to work out. As Chou Toshio implied, banning the combination of Drizzle + Swift Swim is only a slight difference over banning Drizzle, as rain teams become extremely impractical against sand and even sun without an auto-inducer. As the effects are identical ignoring the loss of rain stall, which we should not be trying to preserve at the metagame's expense, the more simplistic ban is better. If Terakion and Landlos prove to be broken once Drizzle is banned, then just ban them too. That's why we have continuous suspect testing, to deal with problems as they arise. And if they're broken without Drizzle then there's a pretty good chance that they'll be broken in a Drizzle without Swift Swim metagame.
-
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.
Weather Abilities (but mostly Drizzle)
- Thread starter Aldaron
- Start date
One possible solution that isn't getting much attention right now is just banning Swift Swim period. If we're concerned that Drizzle + Swift Swim is broken, and if we're afraid that without Drizzle numerous threats on Sand will become too overwhelming for Standard play, the obvious solution is just to ban Swift Swim. Drizzle itself has plenty of good abusers that aren't Swimmers (Manaphy, Toxicroak, Thunder users) and could still field competitive teams.
On the other hand, we saw in Gen IV that the Rain Dance/Swift Swim combo has a lot of problems in a Sand dominated metagame, and if it isn't quite a gimmick, it certainly isn't an oft used strategy either. Thus, banning Swift Swim outright and leaving Drizzle would seem to me to be the best solution if we want to stay as close to the "status quo" as we can.
On the other hand, we saw in Gen IV that the Rain Dance/Swift Swim combo has a lot of problems in a Sand dominated metagame, and if it isn't quite a gimmick, it certainly isn't an oft used strategy either. Thus, banning Swift Swim outright and leaving Drizzle would seem to me to be the best solution if we want to stay as close to the "status quo" as we can.
Seriously why don't we just ban Drizzle, and maybe all auto-weather for that matter.
I was also thinking this. If the Drizzle+Swift Swim combo was banned, I think rain would be used less often as a general strategy than if Drizzle was banned altogether. Using Rain Dance would feel utterly retarded when Drizzle was available, but since I don't get Swift Swim then, I just wouldn't bother.
Either way, whether it's the combo or Drizzle that's banned, Rain is going to die off, leaving us with the same situation, so why not just go for the easy one....
I was also thinking this. If the Drizzle+Swift Swim combo was banned, I think rain would be used less often as a general strategy than if Drizzle was banned altogether. Using Rain Dance would feel utterly retarded when Drizzle was available, but since I don't get Swift Swim then, I just wouldn't bother.
Either way, whether it's the combo or Drizzle that's banned, Rain is going to die off, leaving us with the same situation, so why not just go for the easy one....
I didn't argue against simpler is better. What I was criticizing was that :
All that argument =/
I happen to agree with Aldaron here - and I'm a champion for rules simplicity and pedantry so that should speak a few volumes.
Any arguments about this setting a bad precedent are self-fulfilling prophecies - if we go the extra mile to make sure this is an exception like Inconsistent the only people that could make this "precedent" would be you the voters.
Any arguments about this setting a bad precedent are self-fulfilling prophecies - if we go the extra mile to make sure this is an exception like Inconsistent the only people that could make this "precedent" would be you the voters.
Why do we need to make the exception anyways? I know that I'll be voting for all the sand abusers to be banned along with drizzle (and drought) and this solves the same issue in a lot less complicated way. We don't NEED to scrap what we've done for all of 4th gen so we can save rain stall. I would argue that for trying to preserve as much of the metagame as possible, keeping manaphy around without perma rain is a lot better, as (I admit I haven't tested this, it's just my opinion) I think it isn't broken without a free stab boost and a 100% healing move that can be spammed. It will simply be a bulky sweeper with ok coverage and a means of quickly boosting its attack that still can't break through burungeru, nattorei, blissey, ect at +6 and is still outsped (or tied with) and ohkoed by zapdos, voltlos, and shaymin. Otherwise known as mid ou. Which will mean that it's a lot more common than rain stall ever will be.
At the people that say politoed should stay so that sand has a counter: politoed doesn't allow you to beat a sand team. A good sand team is prepared for *gasp* the circumstance that maybe they might have to refresh their sandstorm. They will also be able to switch into water attacks. Leaving politoed in the metagame does not mean that sand won't run rampant, it will be a fairly weak check to the team, nothing more.
@coyo: My second post was more adding new threads of reasoning than replying to yours, since after thinking about it the argument in the first is not the main point. On it's own that argument would not be strong enough, and yea, it would be questionable to discard a range of options simply because of the possibility of the being misused due to "human stupidity" as you put it. However, you have to consider some elements of practicality as well, and honestly, those people arguing for a complex ban for another game element or combination of them would be just as right as some are here. Weather abilities have a large effect on the metagame, yes. More than many and in a fairly complex way, yes. But they are not unique. Various other game elements have an effect on the metagame that is comparably significant and complex, or moreso. If a ban complex ban will lead to more complex bans (to quote cim: "if we go the extra mile to make sure this is an exception like Inconsistent the only people that could make this "precedent" would be you the voters.". Think about it. Using a previous non-simple ban to help justify a more complex ban, already, lol.), then that is worth noticing, even if it should not prevent us from taking a course of action which would lead to a better metagame. The real problem, which I focused much more on in the second post, is the fact that we know simpler bans are better and we cannot know or even effectively argue that this complex ban will be better for the metagame.
I personally don't see the issue with just banning Drizzle (or Swift Swim) and eventually Dory and Landlos. More than any of those pokemon, I want to preserve Rock's Special Defensive boost.
Rock's biggest issue since Gen 1 is the fact that it has way, WAY too many weaknesses (especially specially oriented ones like Water and Grass) to go along with their slow-sluggish builds and generally weaker special defensive stats. GF realized this was an issue, and they made a very good decision with the Special Defensive boost mechanic.
Or you can choose to simply read my above whining as: In the hyper offensive meta, you want Pursuit to be as viable as possible, and Tyranitar only really does this well with Sp.DEF boost. It checks latis (we can at least keep latias OU I hope) who in turn check all the slower dragons chomp/mence/nite/sazan/etc.
Am I blowing things out of proportion? Probably, but I think my concerns are real enough to put here. Anyway, I want to keep TTar's Sp.DEF boost in tact if at all possible. If you are willing to recognize the positive effects Drizzle has of balancing sand, you should be able to recognize the much greater positive effects +Sp.DEF ttar (and other rock types as well really) has on the meta. I want to avoid anotherpathetic Dragon Witch-Hunt if at all possible, and Sp.DEF TTar and Latias are big players there.
Rock's biggest issue since Gen 1 is the fact that it has way, WAY too many weaknesses (especially specially oriented ones like Water and Grass) to go along with their slow-sluggish builds and generally weaker special defensive stats. GF realized this was an issue, and they made a very good decision with the Special Defensive boost mechanic.
Or you can choose to simply read my above whining as: In the hyper offensive meta, you want Pursuit to be as viable as possible, and Tyranitar only really does this well with Sp.DEF boost. It checks latis (we can at least keep latias OU I hope) who in turn check all the slower dragons chomp/mence/nite/sazan/etc.
Am I blowing things out of proportion? Probably, but I think my concerns are real enough to put here. Anyway, I want to keep TTar's Sp.DEF boost in tact if at all possible. If you are willing to recognize the positive effects Drizzle has of balancing sand, you should be able to recognize the much greater positive effects +Sp.DEF ttar (and other rock types as well really) has on the meta. I want to avoid another
I think that as much as possible we should go for the simplest ban. If we are going to go off and make overly complicated bans they should at least have a large positive impact on the meta. If we were to ban drizzle in conjuncture with swift swim, all we would be doing is preserving rain stall at the expense of simplicity. I see no logic in going this far as rain stall hardly provides a good check to sand as it is and rain teams would be extremely less effective without and auto inducer. I believe it would be best to go for the simplest ban possible and first take a look at Manaphy as it is the only poke that in my mind that breaks rain, and it can still be broken outside of it. If after Manaphy is gone, rain is still broken, then I would fully support a ban of drizzle, but I think that creating rules against the combination of drizzle and swiftswim just over complicates the game with little positive results steming from it.
At first I was strongly against this as I had a strong concern with simplicity of ruleset. While I still feel we should not go through great lengths to nerf a certain Pokemon for the sake of keeping it OU, as Phil said on IRC, the more I think about it the more it makes sense. We can either do something like ban Drizzle, Chlorophyll, and Sandstream (or similarly Drizzle, Chlorophyll, Landlos, and Doryuuzu), or ban Kingdra/Venusaur/Ludicolo/Kabutops/Doryuuzu/Landlos. And while I like simplicity of ruleset, one thing that I do not like is an overinflated Uber tier.
The OP is right in that weather is a very complex issue - giving certain Pokemon 2x speed boosts, as well as boosting the power of certain moves, is an extremely powerful characteristic that exists on several potent sweepers - and this really limits team building options. Like I said in the nominations thread, I'm willing to bet that 95% of those who qualified had a weather inducer on their team(s), simply because if you don't plan on controlling the weather, you plan on being able to check every type of weather there is (which is impossible) - and thus the metagame has turned into "whoever controls the weather most likely wins".
My overall stance: ban drizzle for now, but if overwhelming support arises that Sand Throw/Power + Sand Stream or Chlorophyll + Drought is broken, do a blanket ban.
The OP is right in that weather is a very complex issue - giving certain Pokemon 2x speed boosts, as well as boosting the power of certain moves, is an extremely powerful characteristic that exists on several potent sweepers - and this really limits team building options. Like I said in the nominations thread, I'm willing to bet that 95% of those who qualified had a weather inducer on their team(s), simply because if you don't plan on controlling the weather, you plan on being able to check every type of weather there is (which is impossible) - and thus the metagame has turned into "whoever controls the weather most likely wins".
My overall stance: ban drizzle for now, but if overwhelming support arises that Sand Throw/Power + Sand Stream or Chlorophyll + Drought is broken, do a blanket ban.
Ok, so I've been thinking this for a while, and I just want to get it out there. Can we ban auto weather entirely?
it's simple. its easy to explain. and best of all it keeps cool pokemon that I love to use (like rand, kingdra, etc) in OU because they are far from broken without their weather effect.
Also, one thing I like about this idea, is it can promote TM use as a viable strategy. While this may sound stupid (which to some of you im sure it does), but using Sand Storm randorusu is probably a lot more skill based than using auto weather and then using rand. it preserves the pokemon's capabilities, but it makes it harder to just throw on a team and expect results. same goes for manaphy. rain rest would require a lot more skill to use if you have to use rain dance in one slot and it doesnt last forever.
ive been thinking more and more about that idea, and I personally like it as opposed to some confusing rules about banning swift swim and drizzle use in conjunction to one another.
it's simple. its easy to explain. and best of all it keeps cool pokemon that I love to use (like rand, kingdra, etc) in OU because they are far from broken without their weather effect.
Also, one thing I like about this idea, is it can promote TM use as a viable strategy. While this may sound stupid (which to some of you im sure it does), but using Sand Storm randorusu is probably a lot more skill based than using auto weather and then using rand. it preserves the pokemon's capabilities, but it makes it harder to just throw on a team and expect results. same goes for manaphy. rain rest would require a lot more skill to use if you have to use rain dance in one slot and it doesnt last forever.
ive been thinking more and more about that idea, and I personally like it as opposed to some confusing rules about banning swift swim and drizzle use in conjunction to one another.
This is a nice idea, but I think the matter needs a special test if we would like to implement this.
The problem is that while Rain, Sandstorm(and maybe Sun) issues get solved by this, I think the issue of Hail still remains, since it has no true "abusers" outside of stall.
Eh. I think that keeping sandstorm is a necessity, as tyranitar is the only thing that stops specs latios from running through ou, and it can't do that if it doesn't get the SpD boost. I think that keeping lati@s in the meta (potentially) is better than having landlos/dory in a sandless meta, as they have a typing that stops a ton of stuff from running rampant (birijion).
No issue at all with banning sun or rain though.
No issue at all with banning sun or rain though.
I'm actually wholly opposed to banning auto-weather in its entirety for a couple of reasons.
As we have seen, each weather (minus Hail) has had about 2 Pokemon come forth as Pokemon that are broken under their respective weather condition (Rain: Manaphy and Kingdra, Sand: Doryuuzu and Landlos, Sun: TBD, probably Urgamoth and Doreida, idk I haven't really played with it yet). Now, clearly the auto-weather is making these Pokemon broken as they can sweep relatively unhindered, save for another weather starter changing the weather on said sweeper. However, these are the only Pokemon that have shown that they are clearly broken with auto-weather in play. If these are the only Pokemon that are broken under auto-weather, then banning auto-weather is the wrong move to make; instead, we should be banning the abusers. If it turns out that these aren't the only Pokemon that are broken under auto-weather, and there are actually many Pokemon that are broken with auto-weather, then it is indeed the auto-weather that is broken and should be banned.
So, what am I trying to get across? I'm saying that we should ban the weather abusers before we ban auto-weather. However, if the current weather abusing suspects aren't the only Pokemon that are broken with auto-weather, then it is indeed the auto-weather that is broken and needs to be banned.
Why do I say that if auto-weather makes more than 2+ Pokemon broken then it should be banned? Simply because I feel we should ban as little into Ubers as possible, (if we ban auto-weather now, we'll currently ban Politoed, Ninetales/Vulpix, Tyranitar, Hippowdon/Hippopotas, Abomasnow/Snover which is 8 Pokemon compared to anywhere from 4-6 Pokemon). Obviously we aren't banning the Pokemon themselves, but we will be making them relatively useless without their ability, which would be kind of like banning them (more like neutering, but whatever.)
How would we go about this? Well, we would banish the current weather abusing suspects this round, and then play the next suspect round with auto-weather in play. If it turns out that auto-weather is indeed still broken, then we would ban auto-weather and bring back the weather abusers. It seems to me that this is the simplest and easiest solution, rather than trying to ban ability + Pokemon/move combinations.
I realize this post is kind of scatter-brained, but I think I got across what I want to say. I don't care if my idea seems stupid or ignorant, this is just how I feel this situation should be handled.
As we have seen, each weather (minus Hail) has had about 2 Pokemon come forth as Pokemon that are broken under their respective weather condition (Rain: Manaphy and Kingdra, Sand: Doryuuzu and Landlos, Sun: TBD, probably Urgamoth and Doreida, idk I haven't really played with it yet). Now, clearly the auto-weather is making these Pokemon broken as they can sweep relatively unhindered, save for another weather starter changing the weather on said sweeper. However, these are the only Pokemon that have shown that they are clearly broken with auto-weather in play. If these are the only Pokemon that are broken under auto-weather, then banning auto-weather is the wrong move to make; instead, we should be banning the abusers. If it turns out that these aren't the only Pokemon that are broken under auto-weather, and there are actually many Pokemon that are broken with auto-weather, then it is indeed the auto-weather that is broken and should be banned.
So, what am I trying to get across? I'm saying that we should ban the weather abusers before we ban auto-weather. However, if the current weather abusing suspects aren't the only Pokemon that are broken with auto-weather, then it is indeed the auto-weather that is broken and needs to be banned.
Why do I say that if auto-weather makes more than 2+ Pokemon broken then it should be banned? Simply because I feel we should ban as little into Ubers as possible, (if we ban auto-weather now, we'll currently ban Politoed, Ninetales/Vulpix, Tyranitar, Hippowdon/Hippopotas, Abomasnow/Snover which is 8 Pokemon compared to anywhere from 4-6 Pokemon). Obviously we aren't banning the Pokemon themselves, but we will be making them relatively useless without their ability, which would be kind of like banning them (more like neutering, but whatever.)
How would we go about this? Well, we would banish the current weather abusing suspects this round, and then play the next suspect round with auto-weather in play. If it turns out that auto-weather is indeed still broken, then we would ban auto-weather and bring back the weather abusers. It seems to me that this is the simplest and easiest solution, rather than trying to ban ability + Pokemon/move combinations.
I realize this post is kind of scatter-brained, but I think I got across what I want to say. I don't care if my idea seems stupid or ignorant, this is just how I feel this situation should be handled.
I'm actually applying the principle of "providing as diverse a metagame, strategically speaking, as possible" to the ability Drizzle, and asking for an exception. I'm not saying anything should be OU or should be viable; I'm saying we should strive to maintain diversity (Drizzle and Rain Dance + Swift Swim) of strategy in our metagame if only one aspect of that diversity is broken (Drizzle + Swift Swim).
You're fine posting here. We encourage our posters to post as long as they provide justification for what they post.
My response to you is the same as SDS; I'm not not saying the ability Drizzle deserves to be OU; I'm saying the diversity of strategy it provides the metagame is worth making an exception and only banning one strategy with it, instead of all of them. Just to reiterate because user Snunch seems to have missed this in the nomination topic, I believe Drizzle without Swift Swim is good for the metagame because:
a.) It checks Sand
b.) It helps us prevent stagnation in our metagame by providing diversity via:
i.) Allowing Rain Stall to be extremely viable. Don't say "who uses Rain Stall." MoP (aeroblacktyl on the forums) used a very effective Rain Stall team that was being copied by people on ladder. Rain Stall is very effective, and an interesting additional strategy possible only with Drizzle allowed.
ii.) Ensuring any one weather isn't dominant. If Rain is gone, you can bet Sand will reign supreme. Sand doesn't fear Hail / Sun nearly as much as it does Rain.
iii.) Helping us possibly not continue to ban everything under the sun. After we ban Drizzle, you can bet either Sandstream and Drought will go or Landlos / Terakion / Dory / Venusaur etc. will go.
iv.) Increasing the viability of certain Pokemon (such as Slowbro and Tentacruel) that arent' Swift Swimmers to further diversity.
Locopoke's response to you is one response I have; the other is that I realize your concern on a moral level, which is why I want to make weather abilities the exception. Can we at agree that weather abilities are completely different than others?
We have no objective baseline for the simplicity you so admire and adore. It is very literally a subjective shot in the dark that we all "accept" as simple. Additionally, simplicity in the Pokemon Metagame's ruleset is literally negligible; there is discernible additional confusion between Drizzle is banned and Drizzle and Swift Swim are banned on the same team. To say so is literally much ado about nothing. You haven't explained why complexity is bad beyond "harder to get into," to which I respond "negligible."
I have however taken my time to explain that in weather-inducing ability cases, banning the +2 Speed ability in conjunction with the Weather on the same team is beneficial because it allows us to keep the Weather and the plethora of strategy it brings, and keep the +2 ability for the "quick hit and run" strategies known in OU + keep those Pokemon actually seen in OU.
I'm not saying drizzle or swift swim "should be" OU; I'm saying we should strive for diversity in strategy in our metagame, and making a negligibly "complex" (in quotes because again, we have no objective baseline for simplicity) rule that allows us to maximize that is preferable.
Actually, there is no proof that simple is better FOR THE GAME. There is only proof that simpler is easier to get into. This is only true if the complexity if SIGNIFICANT and the simplicity is nonexistent. I have, again, provided the burden of proof for this particular complex ban; it allows us to maximize diversity, reduce future bans, and provide a check for Sand, all for a negligible increase in complexity.
That's why we'll test it. This is EXTREMELY easy to revert and move on with. If Drizzle completely dies out, then who cares right? It's the same, practically speaking, as banning it. If it is still broken, we just remove the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban and just make it Drizzle.
Simple.
I don't understand why you say "the metagame's expense." How is it bad for the metagame if a non broken strategy (Drizzle without Swift Swim) increases the diversity in the metagame? Why would we continue to ban things if they aren't broken at a previous stage with one, negligibly more complex rule?
I prefer realistically limiting our bans. I don't like just ban ban banning things we don't like because honestly, we don't have 100% ways to see what is broken. In the end it's subjective, and in the end I would rather keep as much stuff as possible and just tweak the rules a bit to do so.
Shouldn't we test this to see it first? I'm confident Drizzle team will NOT die off. Rain is a power weather; providng more power to already powerful Water attacks (in terms of metagame effectiveness) and lowering Fire Pokemon's effectively is useful. Rain Stall itself is extremely effective, as I mentioned earlier in the post with MoP.
Actually we don't know they are better; you're just saying they are. Like I mentioned before, the only area where they are better is if the complex rules are significantly complex enough, AND ONLY in the "getting into the metagame" area.
What you're doing here is just declaring support for a philosophy, and then admitting something does good but we shouldn't do it because it goes against your philosophy of simplicity. I do agree that mostly we should be simple; I mean, why bother being complex right? However, I also believe that if we can theorymon a better metagame with a negligibly more complex rule, we should strive to do so.
No one,not one person here, has explained what "overcomplicates" means. Not only that, but there has been no objective baseline set for "overcomplication," nor has there been any objective reasoning provided for that baseline. It has literally been "I want simplicity because I don't want overcomplication."
You have to tell me the various positive effects on the metagame (that will be tested next stage) are not high enough to merit the negligibly more complex rule, and why they aren't high enough on the significance scale.
Why is adding 7 words, from "Drizzle is banned" to "Drizzle and Swift Swim are banned on the same team," not worth the various positive effects I said keeping Drizzle in the metagame would net us?
To be honest i've been turned towards this idea, but at the same time I think we need to be careful with diversity. Obviously we don't want a metagame where it is dominated by literally 1 or 2 Pokemon because it becomes monotonous, but really we shouldn't be striving for a metagame where we can only check half the teams (which is what it feels like at the moment to be, to be honest lol). Hopefully we can strike a nice balance between the two and as you said it isn't hard at all to just change it.
Another thing that could be considered is a suspect ladder of sorts where we can test this idea out? I don't know if that would be a route you would consider taking but maybe it would be worth it. For instance if you have one ladder with the results of the R2 testing period, and one with results of the testing period plus this clause, and at the end of R3 (or even earlier) decide on which metagame is better to proceed with?
Another thing that could be considered is a suspect ladder of sorts where we can test this idea out? I don't know if that would be a route you would consider taking but maybe it would be worth it. For instance if you have one ladder with the results of the R2 testing period, and one with results of the testing period plus this clause, and at the end of R3 (or even earlier) decide on which metagame is better to proceed with?
the difference between rain and sand is that the latter really only has two dangerous sweepers in doryuzu and landlos while the former ranges from kingdra, ludicolo, kabutops, manaphy, gorebyss, and omastar off the top of my dome. this might sound like a subjective opinion but i think the metagame would still be balanced with the removal of drizzle because the difference in overwhelming power level are much different with sand and rain.
from an offensive standpoint rain is easily the more dominating force in comparison to the other weather out there. rain provided a water-type stab boost with the added benefit for increasing your speed by two stages via swift swim. sand however is lacking in the offensive department because it really doesn't have any beneficial offensive boosts and the sweepers have a twofold option between an increase of speed or an increase of power.
i think we should simply remove the evident weather problem here and let's ignore this slippery slope argument. if we use common sense here, drizzle is actually far more threatening than two measly sweepers under sand. once the problem is removed, we can play under sand and see how this plays out. the difference with the drizzle-less metagame is that it is less chaotic and you'd have to check lesser threats because believe me team building has become a slight nuisance with the amount of threats in gen 5, especially with both drizzle and sandstorm in the metagame.
from an offensive standpoint rain is easily the more dominating force in comparison to the other weather out there. rain provided a water-type stab boost with the added benefit for increasing your speed by two stages via swift swim. sand however is lacking in the offensive department because it really doesn't have any beneficial offensive boosts and the sweepers have a twofold option between an increase of speed or an increase of power.
i think we should simply remove the evident weather problem here and let's ignore this slippery slope argument. if we use common sense here, drizzle is actually far more threatening than two measly sweepers under sand. once the problem is removed, we can play under sand and see how this plays out. the difference with the drizzle-less metagame is that it is less chaotic and you'd have to check lesser threats because believe me team building has become a slight nuisance with the amount of threats in gen 5, especially with both drizzle and sandstorm in the metagame.
I dislike the idea that I have to suggest this, but apparently the majority of the community isn't capable of maturely handling threats anymore to allow the metagame to evolve to a point in which we appropriately understand what is potentially problematic and what is not. So I'm coming up with the most logical compromise.
Ban auto-weather.
1) Simplicity is important; even if some of you deny it's relevance in making rules and clauses (and think slippery slope is a logical fallacy, which it's not, I'm sorry), it becomes essential for maintaining a healthy order in which further policy is conducted. By banning auto weather entirely, we do not need to discuss intricate and complex bans (Swift Swim + Drizzle) for the sake of metagame "health" when the truth is that we don't even know what the outcome will be after we implement these ban. tl;dr, we're complicating our policy for a particular visionary, idealistic metagame we have yet to see. One of which I think everyone has a different interpretation of then the next person. I think this is not only preemptive, but also completely unnecessary. We need to keep it simple.
2) Right now, we have people throwing a lot of Pokemon on the ban table. Landlos, Doryuuzu, Manaphy, et cetera... (Just to name the ones that don't actually sound stupid). Nearly all of these are resulting because of the effects of continuous weather. Note, I am not pinning the blame on any particular aspect of gameplay to justify what should be considered suspect, and what should not. However, what is apparent is that we have almost two or more Pokemon being labeled as "broken" for each weather condition, outside of Hail. It would make sense then, not only to coincide with simplicity, but also to maintain diversity, that we ban Sandstream, Drizzle, Drought, et cetera, in order to preserve the Pokemon who would otherwise be quite manageable without infinite weather conditions.
In other words, we lose Sandstream, but we gain Landlos and Doryuuzu. We lose Drizzle, but we keep Manaphy and Kingdra.
3) People are playing favorites, and it's really irritating. It needs to stop. We have people nominating Drizzle, just so we can keep Politoed and Kingdra and Manaphy in OU, meanwhile no one is attempting to nominate Sandstream for the same reasons that apply to Doryuuzu and Landlos. On top of this, Drought isn't anywhere near the top of the ladder, and we have people nominating it on the assumptions that once they ban Drizzle, Drought will dominate.
Basically, this screams to me that people just want Generation IV back. That sounds like a repeated cliche that's been passed around Uncharted Territory, but I find it hard to come to any other conclusion.
And for those of you who tell me that sand only has two Pokemon that are "broken" under its weather condition, meanwhile rain has a myriad of Pokemon who are equally as bad outside of Manaphy, Kingdra, and Kabutops; stop posting on these forums and actually play the damn game. You're throwing out speculations based on theory that haven't even been applied to practice yet. We don't know if other rain abusers are broken because they're not seeing play, so don't make the argument.
4) I realize diversity of gameplay is also important, not just the choices that are available to a player. That said, I don't believe that sand, rain, et cetera, will die out completely as a niche in OU if we ban the abilities that keep them maintained indefinitely. If Doryuuzu and Landlos are REALLY that powerful, then I feel Sandstorm and its designated item to have it last for 8 turns will see use. The same applies to any abuser with Swift Swim, Manaphy, and others that enjoy the benefits of Rain Dance. The same may apply to Drought as well.
If I am wrong, which I very well could be, then oh well. We lost weather. It's still the better alternative.
5)
I don't like calling particular posters out, this just happened to be an example that was readily available.
First of all, if Latios is broken, ban the damn thing. Don't make convoluted arguments like we need to keep Sandstream around so Tyranitar can act as the singular counter/check to a Pokemon that should be Uber.
Similar notions being tossed around akin to Sandstream being a necessity to Rock types and other notable but ultimately unimportant excuses for keeping weather around when all it's doing is creating problems is the exact mentality that has us running around in circles.
Ban the things you need to, keep the things you don't. It's not difficult.
I realize some of this might be rather raw, but it needs to be said. People are lining everything up for a ban, and everyone else is going out of there way to construe and distort the ways in which we've continued to decide how our metagames are formed in a simplistic, logical, and orderly fashion, all for the sake of keeping a few 'mons around.
Why?
Ban auto-weather.
1) Simplicity is important; even if some of you deny it's relevance in making rules and clauses (and think slippery slope is a logical fallacy, which it's not, I'm sorry), it becomes essential for maintaining a healthy order in which further policy is conducted. By banning auto weather entirely, we do not need to discuss intricate and complex bans (Swift Swim + Drizzle) for the sake of metagame "health" when the truth is that we don't even know what the outcome will be after we implement these ban. tl;dr, we're complicating our policy for a particular visionary, idealistic metagame we have yet to see. One of which I think everyone has a different interpretation of then the next person. I think this is not only preemptive, but also completely unnecessary. We need to keep it simple.
2) Right now, we have people throwing a lot of Pokemon on the ban table. Landlos, Doryuuzu, Manaphy, et cetera... (Just to name the ones that don't actually sound stupid). Nearly all of these are resulting because of the effects of continuous weather. Note, I am not pinning the blame on any particular aspect of gameplay to justify what should be considered suspect, and what should not. However, what is apparent is that we have almost two or more Pokemon being labeled as "broken" for each weather condition, outside of Hail. It would make sense then, not only to coincide with simplicity, but also to maintain diversity, that we ban Sandstream, Drizzle, Drought, et cetera, in order to preserve the Pokemon who would otherwise be quite manageable without infinite weather conditions.
In other words, we lose Sandstream, but we gain Landlos and Doryuuzu. We lose Drizzle, but we keep Manaphy and Kingdra.
3) People are playing favorites, and it's really irritating. It needs to stop. We have people nominating Drizzle, just so we can keep Politoed and Kingdra and Manaphy in OU, meanwhile no one is attempting to nominate Sandstream for the same reasons that apply to Doryuuzu and Landlos. On top of this, Drought isn't anywhere near the top of the ladder, and we have people nominating it on the assumptions that once they ban Drizzle, Drought will dominate.
Basically, this screams to me that people just want Generation IV back. That sounds like a repeated cliche that's been passed around Uncharted Territory, but I find it hard to come to any other conclusion.
And for those of you who tell me that sand only has two Pokemon that are "broken" under its weather condition, meanwhile rain has a myriad of Pokemon who are equally as bad outside of Manaphy, Kingdra, and Kabutops; stop posting on these forums and actually play the damn game. You're throwing out speculations based on theory that haven't even been applied to practice yet. We don't know if other rain abusers are broken because they're not seeing play, so don't make the argument.
4) I realize diversity of gameplay is also important, not just the choices that are available to a player. That said, I don't believe that sand, rain, et cetera, will die out completely as a niche in OU if we ban the abilities that keep them maintained indefinitely. If Doryuuzu and Landlos are REALLY that powerful, then I feel Sandstorm and its designated item to have it last for 8 turns will see use. The same applies to any abuser with Swift Swim, Manaphy, and others that enjoy the benefits of Rain Dance. The same may apply to Drought as well.
If I am wrong, which I very well could be, then oh well. We lost weather. It's still the better alternative.
5)
NailsOU said:
I don't like calling particular posters out, this just happened to be an example that was readily available.
First of all, if Latios is broken, ban the damn thing. Don't make convoluted arguments like we need to keep Sandstream around so Tyranitar can act as the singular counter/check to a Pokemon that should be Uber.
Similar notions being tossed around akin to Sandstream being a necessity to Rock types and other notable but ultimately unimportant excuses for keeping weather around when all it's doing is creating problems is the exact mentality that has us running around in circles.
Ban the things you need to, keep the things you don't. It's not difficult.
I realize some of this might be rather raw, but it needs to be said. People are lining everything up for a ban, and everyone else is going out of there way to construe and distort the ways in which we've continued to decide how our metagames are formed in a simplistic, logical, and orderly fashion, all for the sake of keeping a few 'mons around.
Why?
I largely agree with ullevo who kind of posted what I said just more in depth. I also feel like people are not receptive to banning sand stream because it was fairly common in gen 4. In my opinion, I find sand teams more dangerous than rain teams. Typical mons like rand and dory can get out of hand really fast largely due to sand stream. I don't have a problem beating dory not in sand, and rand is similar to garchomp just with different typing and stabs. They are both dealt with a lot more comfortably without 20% evasion and an ability that boosts attack a lot. Rand's rock polish set isn't nearly as good as with the boost but would still (my guess) be a good pokemon in ou. I'd personally like to keep these pokemon in ou rather than save the weather effects.
My reasoning was based on a post I read somewhere about preventing a dragon witch hunt like there was last gen. Lati@s are A. great checks to a lot of the dragons in OU and B. hard countered by ttar (in the sand). I'd like to see if the meta without rain and dory/landlos can support all of the dragons. That is the reasoning behind my desire to keep sandstorm legal. If Lati@s get banned then garchomp loses two great checks (with EQ immunity), and then salamence runs wild... I'd prefer if the meta didn't go down that route again.
And I'm not guaranteeing that the latis aren't broken. I think that they'll have a far better shot of staying OU if Ttar keeps sand stream though.
And I'm not guaranteeing that the latis aren't broken. I think that they'll have a far better shot of staying OU if Ttar keeps sand stream though.
i dislike the idea of banning every single auto-weather off the bat because we need to focus on banning the auto-weather that is detrimental to the tier at the moment. rain is evidently more dangerous than sandstream and drought and i'm sure we can make a general consensus with this assumption. drizzle just needs the boot while we can test a metagame with sandstream and drought. honestly, the latter two are not even remotely as threatening as drizzle and i would say two threats from sand is more than enough manageable than a whole fleet of rain sweepers. if we do come across the point of banning doryuzu and landlos, then this shouldn't even be considered a problem because no one actually said banning more problematic pokemon is bad thing since it is in fact an inverse of that; we are reaching a healthy metagame and we're going to have to get used to the idea of banning a lot more pokemon to shape the game properly. if everything goes well as predicted then we remove drizzle (keep all the rain sweepers but we can still settle for damp rock!) and we can remove doryuzu and landlos (if they are proven broken).
-drizzle is removed
-sandstream and drought remains
-landlos and doryuzu are banned (if proven broken)
why is sandstream not banned and drizzle is?
they are completely different from an offensive standpoint. the boosts and benefits are entirely different and rain has a whole fleet of sweepers that are easily more threatening than the sandstream sweepers. we can't go with the route of banning all of the sweepers so instead we'll just remove the ability. drizzle is broken, not the sweepers.
-drizzle is removed
-sandstream and drought remains
-landlos and doryuzu are banned (if proven broken)
why is sandstream not banned and drizzle is?
they are completely different from an offensive standpoint. the boosts and benefits are entirely different and rain has a whole fleet of sweepers that are easily more threatening than the sandstream sweepers. we can't go with the route of banning all of the sweepers so instead we'll just remove the ability. drizzle is broken, not the sweepers.
That was admittedly a poor choice of words on my part and I apologize for that. What I should have said was that bans should not be made just to keep a certain style playable.
To respond to your post Drizzle doesn't do enough to keep sand sweepers from being broken, as it was mostly Swift Swim that checked Terakion and Landlos. It does not help matters that most of rain's best remaining checks are beaten by Scarftar or bulky Tar. It should also be noted that Poiltoed does not have the utility to be slapped on to any team like Tyranitar does, making it a hindrance against non-weather teams. Furthermore it definitely breaks Manaphy, who might not be broken without rain. We would have to continue to ban things and we'd have to ban a pokemon who wouldn't be broken with the more simplistic argument.
In my opinion a specially-tailored ban should only be made if it prevents a wide range of things from being banned, which this one would likely not, and not because it would increase diversity.
Although I still personally think that removing Manaphy (and maybe Kingdra if it comes to that) would make Rain a lot more balanced, I actually don't mind this idea if people insist on nerfing Drizzle. It's a much better idea than completely banning Drizzle, because like people have said, there are so many pokemon that still benefit from Drizzle, but are perfectly manageable (ie. Parasect and Toxicroak, or Water-type sweepers without Swift Swim), which increases diversity.
For people saying that simple is better, just remember that in GSC, we did have 2 complex bans which were:
No Hidden Power Legends
No Sleep + Perish Trapping
I recognize that the Drizzle + Swift Swim thing is a bit different, but it does go to show that complex banning isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's not done to an insane degree.
For people saying that simple is better, just remember that in GSC, we did have 2 complex bans which were:
No Hidden Power Legends
No Sleep + Perish Trapping
I recognize that the Drizzle + Swift Swim thing is a bit different, but it does go to show that complex banning isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's not done to an insane degree.