We're old enough to not necessarily believe in any old Clause, right?

[Tangerine]

I think Species clause is a case of "let's test everything" gone too far. The second you remove the clause, you are changing the entire game and how it is played.

Let's remember and be practical. "Competitive" doesn't mean, we should "unban everything we can because we should have less rules". It means that we should create a setting where people can maximize their chances of winning based on the limitations given. The current idea of "competitive" has been taken way too far in that regard, that we're willing to completely change how the game is played for the sake of it.

A game is competitive simply if people are willing to maximize their probabilities of winning given limitations. Removing limitations doesn't make a game more "competitive", it just means we have "less rules". Each individual rule changes the game in a certain way, and there's no reason why we should prefer a game with "less" rules to "more" rules since they have distinct changes. Less rules doesn't make a game more "competitive", it just means you're playing a different game.

This isn't a fighting game where we can just have less rules for "competitive" purposes. It is a different, more sensitive game with a lot more complications than a fighting game. Even Competitive Smash (Fighting Game with Items + other gimmicks) bans all items, even though the effects of one or two items probably wouldn't break the game. It is a blanket ban, because they want to play without items and only play based on the certain skillset that they want play with. This is the case with Pokemon. Our brand of competitive Pokemon has two parts.

1) The Team Building aspect, creating a Team based on the Metagame that will give me an edge over other players, and tweaking teams so that it can "deal" with every threat in the game.

2) The Battling aspect, where the team battles against another, and the ability to deal with imperfect information.

Species clause absolutely and utterly destroys 1. DPPt has a ridiculous amount of threats already, and now having the potential to deal with any threat twice? three times? it changes 1) as we know it and I don't think it's a direction we should be considering. I don't think species clause should be tested at all. Even if we tested, it'll take MANY months to get a REAL testing (if you think it's "obviously broken" after a week then you're simply playing the new game with the old mindset) to get any results, and I don't think it's worth destroying the team building aspect of Pokemon over it. If anyone sticks in a "what if it doesnt have a huge effect" then I believe that player has never, ever, played competitive pokemon seriously enough and doesn't know what they are talking about

We already have a game with imperfect information, and I believe evasion and OHKO only adds more variability to the game, making this imperfect information game even more imperfect with no further tools to deal with such uncertainty, other than the specific opportunity cost of the player using evasion/ohko moves. Obviously, since there's a trade off involved here, I believe OHKO/Evasion should be tested to see how much this tradeoff is and if players are able to capitalize on the added variability created by OHKO/Evasion. The argument against them is quite considerable as they don't aid any maximizing process players go through, so it'd be have to quite an advantage gained by players before we should consider actually allowing it in competitive play. This is how we should approach OHKO/Evasion - "Is the added variability of wins/losses by OHKO/Evasion significant". There are ways to measure this of course, but neither of them should use a suspect ladder.

1) Mark many random players in the months before the test. Get their statistics. Start the test, and see how the statistics of these random players changed. This should be from the best players, good players, mediocre players, etc, to see how it has changed. Obviously, there's the "if you play more you get better" effect, so weighing on that, you should be able to see the change in variance of win/loss or some other measure.

2) See how many people use OHKO/Evasion at the first month, and then the last month. If no one uses it, then it is not broken (opportunity cost of OHKo/Evasion is not worth it) and shouldn't be banned. If a significant number of players use it (some cutoff decided before hand, obviously it'll be arbitrary, but i'm sure we can work out a measure based on what type of players use it and then based on experiment 1) then it should be banned since the added variability is something we should never be going for.

 

[Hipmonlee]

The only effect evasion is going to have is it will net good players a hell of a lot of easy wins as bad players waste their time using bad moves.

Evasion is simply not a threat. I am pretty sure testing will prove this very quickly.

Have a nice day.

 

[Aeolus]

I don't want to test species clause. I agree with Tangerine on that point. Mostly, it just means we're playing an entirely different game from what we've hitherto been accustomed to playing. I'm sure there is a good chance that a game without species clause would work just fine... but that doesn't mean we should embrace it. The other two I'd put in this order:

Evasion Clause
OHKO Clause

I don't have anything new to say about that order than has already been said.

 

[Glen]

The only effect evasion is going to have is it will net good players a hell of a lot of easy wins as bad players waste their time using bad moves.

Evasion is simply not a threat. I am pretty sure testing will prove this very quickly.

Have a nice day.

i dunno if evasion can be dismissed so quickly

dt/baton pass umbreon/zapdos could definitely cause some problems. passing a few double teams to a dragon dancer or something, giving that dancer an x% chance of not losing to what is likely the only counter an opposing team has to it, then sweeping the rest of the team. it may prove to be not very practical but in theory it sounds viable.

 

[lilyhollow]

I'd just like to say that I agree with what Tangerine said pretty much 100%, even though my vote doesn't reflect that. I don't know that I'd consider his position "air-tight," though, in that there's potentially a chance that only a couple Pokemon could even make use of the lack of Species Clause. I mean honestly that sounds ridiculous to me, but I don't have any substance supporting that so what is there to say?

I think the most interesting thing about Tangerine's argument is that, yes, it would take forever for us to draw any real conclusions on a SC-less metagame--or at least on its brokenness. The only thing I imagine we'd be able to tell for sure is, "does a lack of Species Clause have a significant impact on the metagame, and 4th gen Pokemon as we know it?" I imagine from there we'd just say "if yes, then reinstate Species Clause," because if the impact were really huge, and like half of the OU tier could be viably used on a team "with itself," that's so far removed from anything we're familiar with that it would be totally inappropriate to label it something like "broken."

Basically, we won't really be testing whether Species Clause is necessary (to keep the game from being an unplayable mess), but whether it's even viable to determine whether it's necessary in the first place. Because whether it is or isn't, are we seriously going to keep testing it once the number of Pokemon that can use/abuse it extends beyond, like, five or six?

 

[Philip7086]

...but when there's plenty of other junk people can do to "artificially" improve their chances against better players already, it seems silly to say that these particular moves are somehow special cases. I mean why, because they're "already banned?"

I'm curious to know specifically what "junk" you're talking about. Confusion? Paralysis? Focus Energy? Currently, all of the "luck" strategies are avoidable with careful play and status healing. That's obviously what makes these moves a special case. You cannot beat strategies like OHKO moves and evasion passing with careful and smart playing.

All in all, I think it's just obvious that adding these moves to the game does nothing for us competitively. I just don't understand the reasoning behind adding more moves for the sake of adding them. I don't think anyone is going to argue that either of these moves will add a new level of skill in this competitive game, so what's the point? "Yeah, let's just throw in moves that make games hinge on a 20% chance, because smart players will tend to stay away from such an unreliable strategy." I'm sorry, where's the part that makes this game better?

 

[kd24]

I agree completely with phil, I don't understand how the metagame is broken or non-competitive at the moment that these clauses have to be added to fix them or make the metagame more competitive.

Species Clause completely changes the metagame as we know it, and why introduce it now after many long months of testing? It requires someone to completely re-evaluate how you currently play the game, and how many counters/checks/answers are sufficient enough for a certain threat. The possibilities and combinations become almost endless, and it takes away from the little skill we have left in the game and makes it completely random and luck-based.

Evasion Clause feels almost exactly like Species Clause, albeit a bit more fair. It still gives the user a chance to lose the final outcome if the opponent still hits through it, but it still will require players to change the current thoughts on checks, answers, counters, revenge killers, etc. With Pokemon like Gyarados or Salamence, Lucario or Scizor, Infernape or Swampert, etc., it is hard to be able to prepare for these Pokemon more than once while still being capable of handling any other Pokemon. With Double Team available to them, your "guaranteed counter" or reliable answer isn't so reliable anymore. A miss in the fast-paced metagame of today will be deadly to players. Not to mention, it creates a more luck centered metagame. A competitive game should strive to let the best player win, so why hinder this even more than it already is with evasion being able to totally change a game around.

No OHKO clause just rewards bad players. Why should we allow something that gives an automatic free kill? If it isn't adding much variety anyway (most of the Pokemon who learn it, will likely not be used), and is it isn't forming new counters (most of the Pokemon with sturdy are used enough, and OHKO wouldn't be common enough to make players feel like they need a new counter). I don't see why the metagame would be improved by adding this clause. It hardly promotes new strategy, diversity, or competitiveness, or any other thing you want to add. It is a gimmick that could hurt good players and help bad players in situations it shouldn't, which shouldn't happen in a competitive area.

Edit:

I also want to say that it seems like we are testing for the sake of testing. To be fair, I think we are done with dppt and we have tried our best to make the metagame as fair as possible and this is as good as it will likely get. There is no need to abolish clauses to add a new dimension to the game for no reason other than "good players won't use it/it won't be used often/it would be interesting". I think we should enjoy the metagame we have created, not to mention we should finish dealing with Manaphy, Latias, and possibly Salamence in the future.

 

[reachzero]

I've been asked to post this on behalf of user Reflect_Suicune!

You cannot beat strategies like OHKO moves and evasion passing with careful and smart playing.

All in all, I think it's just obvious that adding these moves to the game does nothing for us competitively. I just don't understand the reasoning behind adding more moves for the sake of adding them. I don't think anyone is going to argue that either of these moves will add a new level of skill in this competitive game, so what's the point? "Yeah, let's just throw in moves that make games hinge on a 20% chance, because smart players will tend to stay away from such an unreliable strategy." I'm sorry, where's the part that makes this game better?

I completely disagree with everything about this post. First of all, I fail to see how "careful and smart playing" will not triumph over the use of evasion and OHKOs at least 90% of the time. I think the more accurate statement would be "you cannot beat strategies like OHKO moves and evasion passing without rethinking your team building and style of play". There are numerous answers to evasion passing, and OHKO abuse is even easier to deal with. However I'm not going to go off on what x strategies beat suspect strategy y because I believe you are completely missing the point.

It is not at all appropriate to support your argument with the claim that unbanning the "suspects" adds nothing to Pokemon. Aside from the fact that this is far from true, it is a very irrelevant and close-minded outlook, because the issue in question is whether or not the game benefits from those moves not being allowed. Imagine if we took such an approach earlier in the suspect process. One could have argued that unbanning Manaphy is wrong because Manaphy's presence in competitive Pokemon does not "make the game better". However I can make the same argument in favor of banning Camerupt, as, by extension, I do not recall any particular time where Pokemon was more fun or competitive simply because of the existence of Camerupt.

The burden of proof lies with the supporters of the clauses. It does not matter that you feel the game does not benefit from the addition of Double Team or Fissure. A more relevant opinion would be that the game benefits from the removal of Double Team or Fissure - an opinion a wholeheartedly disagree with. Furthermore, even if someone were to muster up a valid argument in favor of evasion clause, I do not see any possibility for a valid argument in favor of not at least testing the two aforementioned clauses. Essentially we are here to determine whether or not moves like Double Team are "uber". We have taken the "innocent until proven guilty" approach up until this point, and I see neither rhyme nor reason in reversing this precedent now. As such, any argument that stems from the fact that "the game is just fine without x" is not at all appropriate.

 

[obi]

The burden of proof lies with the supporters of the clauses.

I agree with this statement. No one has to prove why something should be allowed; you have to prove why it's banned.

Furthermore, even if someone were to muster up a valid argument in favor of evasion clause, I do not see any possibility for a valid argument in favor of not at least testing the two aforementioned clauses.

Test for what? What data would support banning? What data would support unbanning? My argument isn't that either evasion or OHKOs are too powerful. If that were the case, then yes, we would need to test. My argument is that the necessarily increase the level of luck in the game, and thus make the game more like flipping a coin. I don't see how this isn't the case, and thus a test would not provide any new information.

Yes, the game already has luck in it at every point. This does not, however, mean we should increase the effect this has.

 

[TAY]

I am strongly opposed to testing Evasion Clause. Pokemon is already fraught with "small chance to win the game" strategies which are competitively detrimental; I see no reason to consider adding another.

The only effect evasion is going to have is it will net good players a hell of a lot of easy wins as bad players waste their time using bad moves.

Evasion is simply not a threat. I am pretty sure testing will prove this very quickly.

Have a nice day.

A hell of a lot of easy wins and a few frustrating losses as your Whirlwind misses Double Team Ninjask eight times in a row. Whether or not Evasion moves are generally easy to play around is not even half of the issue. The bottom line here is that evasion is a statistically poor strategy with gamebreaking results. This is the opposite of what we should be aiming for in a competitive game (rewarding consistently good play) since it would allow something like a player with five Magikarp and a Ninjask winning maybe 0.5% of the time due entirely to luck.

OHKO clause is somewhat similar, though it is probably worth testing since is has competitive viability, and the existing counters to OHKO moves (typing immunities, sturdy) are viable as well (whereas evasion has "60 power Shockwave", "two Pokemon learn Aura Sphere", and "waste a moveslot and a turn on Mind Reader that doesn't go through substitute").

I do not know whether or not Species Clause will make the game better competitively, and therefore I believe it is worth testing. There is certainly potential that it will significantly change the style of Smogon's competitive Pokemon, and I understand why people wouldn't like that, but I don't really see it as a problem. We already have rules based on semi-arbitrary decisions.

 

[Philip7086]

I am fully aware that the burden of proof lies on the supporter of the clauses, which is why I'm trying to provide proof without the need for testing. The notion that evasion and OHKO moves adds more luck to the game is a fact. You cannot argue that. What I'm trying to say is, for the sake of promoting skill in a competitive environment, these moves should be eliminated. It has nothing to do with exactly how "broken" they are, which is why there is no need to test them. The argument should be limited to whether or not we want the game to be based more on skill, or luck. If the answer is skill, then there is no reason to test these moves, seeing as they take away from the skill factor of the game, and add more to the luck factor (no matter how large or small these differences are).

In that sense, the only way that these moves should even be considered for the metagame is not a test to see how "broken" they are at all. Instead, we should just simply decide if we want the outcome of games to be weighted more heavily with skill or luck. Deciding this needs no testing whatsoever.

Edit: I also wanted to mention that I'd be lying if I said Stage 3-3 was not influencing my position here. I am merely trying to free up some time (since it is, after all, limited) by saying these clauses do not even need to be tested, so that more important issues (Manaphy and Latias without Garchomp, and perhaps even after, Salamence) can be addressed. Obviously testing everything would be optimal. However, I'm just trying to point out that there are legitimate reasons why testing evasion and OHKO moves can be skipped. On the other hand, I see no legitimate reason why Stage 3-3 should be skipped, and if it is indeed getting skipped so that we have enough time to test these clauses, then I would have to say our priorities are all messed up.

 

[lilyhollow]

I'm curious to know specifically what "junk" you're talking about. Confusion? Paralysis? Focus Energy? Currently, all of the "luck" strategies are avoidable with careful play and status healing. That's obviously what makes these moves a special case. You cannot beat strategies like OHKO moves and evasion passing with careful and smart playing.

Anything remotely "unexpected" can be used to take advantage of the single elimination, one game format. I'd argue that Baton Pass teams (as they are) and Explosion are two of the better examples, but that doesn't really matter because the format is just terrible and shouldn't have anything to do with any of our Suspect Test decisions regardless.

All in all, I think it's just obvious that adding these moves to the game does nothing for us competitively. I just don't understand the reasoning behind adding more moves for the sake of adding them. I don't think anyone is going to argue that either of these moves will add a new level of skill in this competitive game, so what's the point? "Yeah, let's just throw in moves that make games hinge on a 20% chance, because smart players will tend to stay away from such an unreliable strategy." I'm sorry, where's the part that makes this game better?

The idea is that good players stray away from bad strategies, while bad players generally don't. If Evasion/OHKOs turn out to be bad, that's just another bad strategy to separate skilled players from unskilled players (making the game more competitive).

And obviously I agree with Reflect_Suicune.

 

[reachzero]

What really makes me nervous about Evasion moves specifically is the fact that they increase the luck factor so greatly over a short period of time. Evasion is considered a "bad strategy" because it is assuming ladder play by a good player--"What wins the most consistently in the hands of someone who knows how to play competitive Pokemon well". Of course, in a typical Suspect test, that is also what we're testing, long-term play by good players. However, I'm concerned that what Double Team/Minimize will affect most is tournament play, against new or unskilled players. If I were playing in the finals of the official Smogon Tournament, I wouldn't use Double Team. If, on the other hand, I was user "n03i3" and I drew Earthworm in round one, I would definitely use Double Team, since it would clearly increase my chances of winning, which are already low. If I know that I only need to win two games out of three, the small chance of winning by "hax" is a lot more attractive than it is on the ladder.

 

[mtr]

First of all, I'm not making a strawman argument, because I have heard arguments for the viability and potential 'Uberness' of Evasion on #stark.

Well, the thing that makes Evasion test-worthy is that it using is has significant opportunity costs. On an offensive team, which player in their right mind would use it? If Salamence got a free turn, I would much rather use Dragon Dance or Draco Meteor than Double Team. And why would I use Double Team over a coverage move?

What about Double Team on defensive Pokemon? I can't see the 25% miss chance being more than situationally useful. So what if Close Combat has 75% accuracy after one boost rather than 100% accuracy? That's still a 75% chance for Blissey to turn into a body bag, and I wouldn't bet a Pokemon on 25%. On the other side of the spectrum, why would Hippowdon care if Surf had 75% accuracy rather than 100%? The same principle applies. And I still have to take into account that Blissey and Hippowdon are wasting moveslots that could be put to use on things like Toxic, Stealth Rock, Protect, Wish, whatever.

OHKO clause is somewhat similar, though it is probably worth testing since is has competitive viability, and the existing counters to OHKO moves (typing immunities, sturdy) are viable as well (whereas evasion has "60 power Shockwave", "two Pokemon learn Aura Sphere", and "waste a moveslot and a turn on Mind Reader that doesn't go through substitute").

No Guard Machamp is a hard counter to all Evasion-based strategies, and stall doesn't care about Double Team except that they might miss with Roar/Whirlwind (and I'll bet my sexual organs that no decent offensive player will use DT on a sweeper).

In short, what I'm arguing is that some people who think that Evasion might be overpowering are ignoring the fact that using Evasion moves has significant opportunity costs. When these costs are factored in, it is readily apparent that for the most part, Evasion moves aren't worth it. Something like Sand Veil Double Team Gliscor might be annoying, and potentially Uber under Defense or Support characteristic, but that is highly doubtful.

I do not know whether or not Species Clause will make the game better competitively, and therefore I believe it is worth testing. There is certainly potential that it will significantly change the style of Smogon's competitive Pokemon, and I understand why people wouldn't like that, but I don't really see it as a problem. We already have rules based on semi-arbitrary decisions.

Eliminating Species Clause will destroy stall, or indeed any defensively based strategy as a viable playstyle for obvious reasons. This will result in an orgy of offensive teams competing against each other to see who can best setup their strategies. I believe that the Support characteristic explain why eliminating Species Clause would result in Pokemon being Uber: if one Pokemon sacrifices itself to sufficiently weaken its counters, then it is consistently setting up an environment in which another Pokemon can sweep by definition: all it has to do is die.

 

[TAY]

In short, what I'm arguing is that some people who think that Evasion might be overpowering are ignoring the fact that using Evasion moves has significant opportunity costs. When these costs are factored in, it is readily apparent that for the most part, Evasion moves aren't worth it. Something like Sand Veil Double Team Gliscor might be annoying, and potentially Uber under Defense or Support characteristic, but that is highly doubtful.

Uhh I think you might have missed what I am saying. I am well aware that evasion has "significant opportunity costs" and that it will rarely be used by good players. In fact, I called evasion moves a poor strategy several times in my post. However, as I said before, the overall ease of defeating the strategy is nowhere near the whole issue. I'll quote the part of my quote that you did not:

The bottom line here is that evasion is a statistically poor strategy with gamebreaking results. This is the opposite of what we should be aiming for in a competitive game (rewarding consistently good play)

Of course sweepers are better without Double Team. That won't stop people from using it, and that won't stop good players from losing to it on occasion because of stupid luck. My Flamethrower probably won't miss Forretress 8 times in a row while it lays spikes/sr/tspikes, but it can certainly happen. Is there really any reason to try and put evasion moves into the metagame other than wanting to eliminate restrictions? Does anyone really think this has any chance of being good for Pokemon as a competitive game?

Are we even trying to make Pokemon a better competitive game? I thought that was the whole point....

 

[Hipmonlee]

All in all, I think it's just obvious that adding these moves to the game does nothing for us competitively.

Well this is just wrong. Especially since evasion moves are so widespread. It basically adds another option to every single pokemon in the game. Players have to decide whether or not using evasion is worthwhile and those sorts of decisions are what make pokemon a competitive game. Whatever your thoughts on evasion it is completely doing something for us competitively.

The notion that evasion and OHKO moves adds more luck to the game is a fact. You cannot argue that.

Given that almost every move in pokemon has a chance element attached to it, then most turns spent using evasion are turns not involving some other form of luck (most likely accuracy or a ch). So the notion that evasion and OHKO moves removes luck from the game is also a fact.

What I really dont understand is what do you even mean by "adds more luck to the game". From the arguments it seems to be increasing the chances that a very good player will lose to a very bad one. But there are evasion counter strategies, and against very bad players you should be able to afford to use them.. Perish song Celebi will counter any evasion BPer. Non BPing evasion users are counterable by almost any normal means.

If n03i3 was going to rely on evasion to beat Earthworm, lets say and Infernape with DT CC, FT, GK. and Earthworm has a roosting Salamence, then the fact that EW is switching in on DTs as opposed to possible CH burn flamethrowers is probably only going to benefit him.

but that doesn't really matter because the format is just terrible and shouldn't have anything to do with any of our Suspect Test decisions regardless.

Regardless it is the format we use and therefore it must have everything to do with our suspect test decisions.

The bottom line here is that evasion is a statistically poor strategy with gamebreaking results. This is the opposite of what we should be aiming for in a competitive game (rewarding consistently good play)

It doesnt have gamebreaking results though..

Have a nice day.

 

[lilyhollow]

Regardless it is the format we use and therefore it must have everything to do with our suspect test decisions.

So what if Evasion made the one game, Single Elimination format completely nonviable (like say it made everyone have an almost equal chance of winning a tournament, but somehow didn't touch ladder play)? "Oh well, looks like we're banning Evasion, even though one game, Single Elimination is already terrible and we aren't even using it for the Suspect Test?" I think it would only serve to further signal that we need to take a long, hard look at the format, not that we really need any more signals.

I don't want to turn this thread into more of me babbling/whining about our tournament system, but it just doesn't make sense to say that "Evasion and OHKOs shouldn't be tested because sure, things might go right as rain under our reasonably legitimate ladder system (the one that we're testing with), but what about the terrible, noncompetitive tournament format that we aren't using to test anything with? That'll definitely be made even less competitive, there's no way we're going through with this."

 

[TAY]

It basically adds another option to every single pokemon in the game. Players have to decide whether or not using evasion is worthwhile and those sorts of decisions are what make pokemon a competitive game. Whatever your thoughts on evasion it is completely doing something for us competitively.

Is it doing something positive competitively? More luck-based options will not make Pokemon a better competitive game; in fact, it will probably make it worse. What good could possibly come out of removing evasion clause? Just "doing something" for the metagame isn't good enough if you don't even know what something could possibly be.

I see no possible good outcome to removing evasion clause, unless the goal is to deregulate the metagame as much as possible.

It doesnt have gamebreaking results though..

Have a nice day.

How is missing five or six or seven times in a row not gamebreaking? I think what you mean is that it doesn't have gamebreaking results on average. Why would we attempt to add moves into the metagame which - as you admit yourself - have almost zero competitive viability, but which have a small chance to make some matches terrible?

 

[Hipmonlee]

Missing several times isnt gamebreaking in hundreds of situations. It doesnt matter how many times Blissey misses a Starmie.

And yes I meant to imply that what I described was a positive effect.

So what if Evasion made the one game, Single Elimination format completely nonviable (like say it made everyone have an almost equal chance of winning a tournament, but somehow didn't touch ladder play)?

I have no idea how it could do that. I guess we would have to consider the circumstances and decide whether we want to change the tournaments or the rules. But I have no idea what could possibly cause this so I cant really speculate on it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Syberia]

I don't want to test species clause. I agree with Tangerine on that point. Mostly, it just means we're playing an entirely different game from what we've hitherto been accustomed to playing.

It also means that literally all of the year-and-a-half of suspect testing we've already done instantly means nothing, as a direct result of what you and Tangerine have just said.

 

[Jumpman16]

This leads me to ask a question: which side will have the burden of proof?

In a Pokemon suspect test, we assume that a Pokemon is OU unless proven Uber, and the burden of proof is on the Uber camp. So what do we assume here? That a Clause is good unless it is proven to be unfair/unnecessary (ie: OHKO Clause is removed because it is unnecessary)? Or that we need to prove that a Clause is necessary for the proper functioning of the metagame in order for the Clause to be implemented (ie: Evasion moves break the metagame)? Judging from the comments, I'm assuming its the latter, but I think that this should be decided as a way to help potential voters make their choices.

It's definitely the latter, since every clause is by definition added on to the existing framework of the game, which includes all the pokemon and all the moves they can learn.

I think it's important to consider Smogon's multiple official tiers of play when asking these sorts of questions. Is it "fair" to ban Evasion moves from all of our official (maybe even unofficial?) tiers, when perhaps none of them besides OU has even one "fair-turned-unfair" Pokemon? Should we even care if Garchomp is certifiably blameworthy in the context of Standard, when the most available alternative is for Evasion to be banned in all tiers, including ones that may not (UU, NU) or even by definition cannot (Ubers) be broken by it?

Ubers is a banlist of pokemon, not moves, and for that reason alone moves need to be considered differently. Perhaps if Evasion and OHKOs make ubers considerably less competitive they can be rebanned, but Ubers is at once a special case because no pokemon can be banned from Ubers. I'm willing to accept that Species Clause might be more broken in Ubers than it is in OU (for the sake of argument), but we need to come to terms with the fact that in Ubers this would be a question of preference before brokenness, if at all the latter.

The scope of the Suspect Test does not currently extend to Ubers, though, and as you suggested the Clauses would ideally have to be tested in each metagame for brokenness.

Now why should we not test OHKOs or evasion? I'll deal with them both here because my objection to both rests on the same premise.

It seems hypocritical for me to now say we should have a rule that has never been tested since I've been a part of competitive Pokemon (the middle of ADV, I think?). My argument is not based on any idea of overpoweredness, however, but rather, a more general competitive argument. Simply put, both moves detract from the competitiveness of the game by making it more luck based.

"But what about the characteristics of an uber?" some say. "Those don't mention anything like that.". It's fairly simple to come up with something that doesn't meet any of the characteristics but should be banned. Cherrim and Castform (or any conditions that create acid weather) should be banned, even though they meet no characteristics. This is because when either Pokemon is brought out during acid weather, they perpetually shift forms, causing the game to hang. Such a situation is clearly opposed to a competitive event, but doesn't fit the offensive, defensive, or support characteristic.

Besides the fact that we do not yet know if HGSS has not finally addressed this..."unique" effect (notice I didn't call it a glitch), I could append "or make the game literally unplayable" to any of the existing characteristics to address such pedantry if I wanted to.

More importantly, as far as Shoddy Battle and Shoddy Battle 2 are concerned it is more a question of practicality than correctness, as I've stated before. If Doug and Colin and bearzly do not want to take the time to program "Acid Rain" into the simulators we use, or perpetually put it very low on the list of priorities, who is anyone to fault them? There are a number of moves that are still not correctly implemented in Shoddy Battle (Heart Swap and Acupressure, off the top of my head) and won't be addressed until SB2, and Shoddy has been in use for well over two years now.

If our Shoddy programmers are going to argue that their time is better spent on other programming endeavors (an argument with which I wholly agree, for the record), then that's fine. That also means that if anyone wants to seriously argue that Acid Rain, should it even still exist in HGSS link play, must be programmed into the only emulators that are used for Gen 4 play (including NetBattle Supremacy for the sake of completeness), then the emulator programmers retain the right to prioritize what "must be programmed".

Alternatively, consider a move that, when used, has a 50% chance to faint all of the opponent's Pokemon, and a 50% chance to faint all of the user's Pokemon. It would be a bit of a stretch to put that under any of the characteristics, but is clearly the worst thing that would ever have been added to Pokemon. However, it is the definition of a coin flip. There would be no need to test this, it turns the game into a glorified game of rock, paper, scissors. Even a move that had a 40% chance to faint all of the opponent's Pokemon and a 60% chance to faint all of the user's Pokemon should be banned for the same reasons. In fact, the % split doesn't matter (unless it's a 0% opponent, 100% user), in all cases, it's a "bad move", but bad players could benefit from using it. If I'm a bad player, but I come face to face with a top player, my chances of winning might normally be 10%. So I just play around a little bit and hope to get lucky to bring those chances of winning up. If the game continues to go as expected, however, then I just bring out my Pokemon that knows a move that lets me win 30% of the time, and suddenly I've tripled my odds of winning. Put another way, the only time moves that are luck-based and "bad" will be used are by players who are bad and can only win if they get lucky.

As I have been stressing throughout this whole thread, there is still a way to consider such possibilities rationally and under the same framework. We certainly can't assume that such a hypothetical move has been used in competitive play all this time without anyone having yet discussed it. How many pokemon learn this coinflip OHKO move? If it is only one or two, why would we start Generation 5 without actually having tested this pokemon (and by extension, all its moves), especially under your personal modus operandi of "default should be not banned"? If the few pokemon that learn this move aren't legendaries (titular or otherwise) and have low base stat totals and/or a crippling Ability (like a Truancy that starts on the first turn instead of the second), why wouldn't we play it out and see if the pokemon that can use this coinflip OHKO is or aren't actually broken in practice? Besides the fact that there is no precedent for Nintendo actually including such "obviously broken" things in pokemon or not altering them in future games, of course (there's a reason two Wobbuffet or other Shadow Tag pokemon can't trap either other anymore, and that Machamp doesn't have Fissure anymore).

I would have addressed the slightly less hypothetical (in that sense that at the end you're obviously alluding to a OHKO move that actually exists instead of a coinflip OHKO, since you've never actually competitively played with or against OHKOs, or otherwise did not indicate you have) part of your paragraph in much the same way X-Act already did, and would have made a specific professional poker reference I'm pretty sure I've posted in previous threads, so you can pretend I did that if you're going to respond to him.

Obviously OHKOs and evasion aren't "Use this once and you have a 1/3 chance to win!". However, they move the game toward luck and away from skill, and for this reason, I don't feel they need to be tested for how powerful they are, as any effect is too much of an effect.

Though "you should feel the same way about Sand Veil and Snow Cloak" is somewhat of a fallacious argument of division, I would still like to know how your thoughts do not directly extend to these Abilities that take even less time to abuse than OHKO and evasion moves. Many people would argue that Garchomp's Sand Veil enough "of an effect" to give it the mere percentage points it needed to be voted uber two times in Stage 3. In your opinion, why do we need to test any pokemon that can abuse these Abilities before banning them?

 

[mtr]

Uhh I think you might have missed what I am saying. I am well aware that evasion has "significant opportunity costs" and that it will rarely be used by good players. In fact, I called evasion moves a poor strategy several times in my post. However, as I said before, the overall ease of defeating the strategy is nowhere near the whole issue. I'll quote the part of my quote that you did not:

Then I apologize if it seemed that I was targeting you, because I wasn't. But I would like to dispute your second statement.

Of course sweepers are better without Double Team. That won't stop people from using it, and that won't stop good players from losing to it on occasion because of stupid luck. My Flamethrower probably won't miss Forretress 8 times in a row while it lays spikes/sr/tspikes, but it can certainly happen. Is there really any reason to try and put evasion moves into the metagame other than wanting to eliminate restrictions? Does anyone really think this has any chance of being good for Pokemon as a competitive game?

Are we even trying to make Pokemon a better competitive game? I thought that was the whole point....

I thought the point was that we would play Pokemon as Game Freak gave it to us, while doing our best to eliminate gamebreaking or glitchy aspects. If removing Species/OHKO/Evasion Clause is broken, then we keep them. But if its not broken, then its a part of the game that we can't ignore or sweep away, regardless of the statistically poor nature of Evasion. Also, you know as well as I do that Pokemon has always had a number of luck-based aspects that we choose to keep, like crits, accuracy, whatever. It isn't fair that we ignore some while keeping others.

 

[Jumpman16]

I'll address TAY's first post in greater detail later, but I can't help commenting now if only because of my love of "for some numbers":

Assuming the Roar/Whirlwind Pokemon is in play before Ninjask uses its first Double Team, there is a 0.53% chance that the pseudo-hazer can't hit Ninjask in eight turns. You are more likely to be flinched by Jirachi ten times in a row, or miss Sand Veil Gliscor in a sandstorm with Ice Beam as it uses Swords Dance twice and then Agility before Baton Passing. Shouldn't you be more afraid of either of these happening (especially the latter given our subject matter) than missing Ninjask eight times? And before you backpedal from an exaggeration I fully realize you made blatant for effect, I will mention that it is more likely that Jirachi will flinch you seven times in a row, or that you will miss the same Sand Veil Gliscor before it uses one Swords Dance and one Agility before Baton Passing, than it is that that Ninjask is able to get off its first five Double Teams before being pseudo-hazed in the above scenario.

 

[Tangerine]

I think everyone recognizes the effects that OHKO/Evasion's direct effects on the competitive game. Many people have pointed this out, and I have echoed this, that the effects that OHKO/Evasion has on the surface damages the competitive game as it significantly increase the variability, whether it be from not having that safe switch into Lapras or Double Team Zapdos, making more and more moves up to "chance" rather than the decisions players make.

However, remember that every move in Pokemon has a specific opportunity cost. In many cases, you are using an otherwise subpar Pokemon in order to cash in on things such as OHKOs, while you are sacrificing moveslots and turns wasted using these moves in order to make these effects happen. The idea behind the test is whether or not these strategies do actually have an significant affect of the game, since a good player can capitalize on the "free turns" given to them by the opponent, meaning that these strategies may be underwhelming.

I understand that many people are arguing from principles, that we shouldn't add this "skill less" variability, that people can get by simply by spamming a move. The thing is that, this is pretty one sided. If someone spams evasion moves, the chance you will hit them AT LEAST once is 83/84 in the 6 turns they use the evasion move. The chance that you will hit them at least once is 20/21 on the 5 turns (after they start using double team), meaning that your phazer will win out in the long run, quite easily. Even if they are already at stage 6 evasion, the chance is that you can phaze them out in 3 turns (19/27 probability that it'll hit at least once). This is the cost, these evasion moves aren't perfect and they must spend turns using it. The idea is that it is quite likely that Evasion/OHKO could be so underwhelming competitively because of these turns you need to spend. It's like setting up Sword Dance Lucario - you can spend setting up, but you can easily be forced out the next turn, and the chances are, you're taking a much bigger risk by staying in and spamming that evasion move. It may be such a bad strategy that the players who do use it may be losing out. The thing is, we don't know until we actually have tested them.

I can't see why we can't test it.

 

[TAY]

I think we need to keep in mind that the main reason to not test something is that it takes over a month to do. I mean we could test anything we want, it would just be a waste of time in most cases.

I don't see why we would waste a month of testing time and probably over a hundred cumulative man-hours in order to test something that is clearly not going to improve the game. I still haven't seen a single person say that they think evasion is a competitively viable strategy - in fact, several people have pointed out how underwhelming they think it will be, in which case I'm not sure why we would even bother attempting to re-introduce it.

As I have stated previously, I agree that evasion is generally ineffectual, but has a small chance of being extremely powerful. This is contrary to what we should expect from a good competitive game. Things with low odds do happen (how many people have seen toxic miss three times in a row, or [element] fang twice in a row? 83/84 is more than a 1% chance...).

I'll sum up my argument here:

1. Evasion moves have low competitive viability.
2. Evasion moves increase the luck factor of the game by having a small chance to give one player a large advantage
3. The suspect test will take over a month to complete.
4. There is no logical reason to test Evasion given these facts.

I am acting under several assumptions:

1. We are not necessarily trying to created a minimally regulated metagame. This includes removing Evasion Clause only because it isn't "broken" (in quotes because different people have different ideas of what it means to break a game). If we are trying to do this, then Evasion Clause should be tested.
2. Keeping Evasion Clause in place does not create an obligation to test all luck-based moves and abilities. This seems like common sense to me, but if anyone really wants to argue about the differences between Double Team and Iron Head Jirachi we can do so....
3. We are trying to make Pokemon as competitive a game as possible, while maintaining that people are still playing "Pokemon".

The main problem with my argument is that I think my first assumption goes against the general idea of the suspect tests: that everything which doesn't ruin the game should be allowed (yes, I know it's more complex but for conciseness' sake...). I admit that if Evasion Clause was not already in place, there is a good chance we would not be considering banning it, and I know that that is not in line with the idealized functionality of the suspect tests. In fact, much of the reason that I am arguing this now is that I think that Evasion Clause would pass the suspect test! It would not ruin the game (which is why it will pass), but it would almost definitely make it marginally worse. I am opposed to making Pokemon a worse competitive game, and I am certainly opposed to wasting a month to do it.