I'm sorry, but you're really the only person I ever see using "simple rules" as an indicator of an ideal metagame, so I don't think stating it so matter-of-factly does do anyone any favors. Why is having simple rules ideal? Hypothetically, why is having complex rules that ultimately make the metagame more enjoyable/competitive/other adjective not ideal? For all the theories I've seen regarding what the "best" metagame might be, saying "the best metagame is the simplest one" is by far the least convincing I've come across.
-
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.
The Metagame - Centralization, Overcentralization, Diversity, and related topics.
- Thread starter Tangerine
- Start date
I'm sorry, but you're really the only person I ever see using "simple rules" as an indicator of an ideal metagame, so I don't think stating it so matter-of-factly does do anyone any favors. Why is having simple rules ideal? Hypothetically, why is having complex rules that ultimately make the metagame more enjoyable/competitive/other adjective not ideal? For all the theories I've seen regarding what the "best" metagame might be, saying "the best metagame is the simplest one" is by far the least convincing I've come across.
The problem with stating it like that is even though you were asked your opinion, you didn't justify why you think it would be ideal outside of "it just is". I could equally respond to the same question with "A metagame where only 6 Pokemon are usable" and without elaborating on why, it isn't going to convince anyone that it's a goal we should be heading to.
I really am curious, I'm not just calling you out to be a dick or whatever.
I don't agree with this. You're probably saying this because you don't play competitively, or else play very sparingly. I don't play too many games either (haven't played since last August lol), but when people play, they want a varied metagame. If the metagame has 60 OU Pokemon (as per the definition), it would be better than it if had 50, even if both are not centralised. Why do you think people play less ubers than standard? Because ubers is much more centralised... it contains only 14 'OU' Pokemon. Now obviously not EVERYONE wants a varied metagame, but I'm sure that most people want as varied a metagame as possible.
This isn't necessarily the case. It could be that people prefer a metagame that is merely sufficiently dencentralised (which is what I am advocating), such as over 40 OU pokemon. Then they would not like Ubers but would like standard without it being true that they like as much diversity as possible. Obviously I don't have a poll on "what people want" here, but the fact that more people play standard than ubers doesn't suggest that more diversity is inherently preferred. (Another reason standard is more popular is that there is more information available to new players of it.)
Obviously this isn't scientific in any way, but considering that complaints about "every team is the same" or "nothing works other than these x pokemon" are so frequent, I find that there is a significant groundswell of people who want more variety in their metagame.
I think I gotta agree with what colin is saying on this one. While there is no doubt people dislike centralization, I think how much decentralization the community wants is not necessarily maximum. People don't play ubers as much because it is centralized. But as Colin said, maybe there is a decentralization threshold, per se. A lot of people think that obviously everybody wants the most decentralized metagame as possible, but I think Colin is right in saying that it's not necessarily true.
In the end, the argument is
"neither side is not necessarily true"
Both sides are pretty ingrained into their views/opinions, especially since we haven't experimented enough to see if a more varied game would be enjoyable, it's just theorymon.
Perhaps more solid definitions are needed on centralization and metagame, or alternate definitions that will at least give us an alternate way to look at things (graphs vs equations vs charts, kind of thing) (My Trends thread was an attempt at this but it looks like it failed!) , or at least, more experimentation, but the question becomes if experimentation is actually practical
As TMN summarized, there are two sides. The only problem is that some people seem to think that one side makes the rules, and that their side isn't getting consideration.
"neither side is not necessarily true"
Both sides are pretty ingrained into their views/opinions, especially since we haven't experimented enough to see if a more varied game would be enjoyable, it's just theorymon.
Perhaps more solid definitions are needed on centralization and metagame, or alternate definitions that will at least give us an alternate way to look at things (graphs vs equations vs charts, kind of thing) (My Trends thread was an attempt at this but it looks like it failed!) , or at least, more experimentation, but the question becomes if experimentation is actually practical
As TMN summarized, there are two sides. The only problem is that some people seem to think that one side makes the rules, and that their side isn't getting consideration.
While this discussion seems to have somewhat wrapped itself up, I'd still like to post my opinion. First, I'd like to say that I agree with everything that Hipmonlee has posted in both this thread and in the thread in PR.
When thinking about what centralisation means, there are variables other than just the amount of pokemon considered OU. For example, what movesets and items are viable in the current metagame. Deoxys-E for example, rendered but but a select few Choice Scarf users virtually usless when it entered the metagame. So while Deoxys-E didn't centralise the metagame by number of OU pokemon, it defnitly rendered a lot of sets usless that were viable before. If we had the ability to see how many popular choice scarf pokemon there were before and after the introduction of Deoxys-E, we could see this.
Beyond that, what ipl, and many others are arguing with is the possible combinations of pokemon, and types of teams. I agree with this as well. There will always be certain types of teams that are popular in the metagame, as it shifts through cycles. But one must think, exactly how popular is this current "type" of team, and how viable are other styles of play? Deoxys-E is the bane of offensive teams, with its unmatched speed and great type coverage. Wobbuffet, on the other end, stalls out stall teams. With an ability to take away one of the very basic moves available to everyone, Wobbuffet adds a whole new dimension to OU that is very difficult to cope with since it is something you can't prepare for.
So in my opinion, centralisation is much more than just the number of pokemon considered OU. Like I said in Policy Review, we don't have all of the data needed to really tell if something is a overcentralising force or not.
When thinking about what centralisation means, there are variables other than just the amount of pokemon considered OU. For example, what movesets and items are viable in the current metagame. Deoxys-E for example, rendered but but a select few Choice Scarf users virtually usless when it entered the metagame. So while Deoxys-E didn't centralise the metagame by number of OU pokemon, it defnitly rendered a lot of sets usless that were viable before. If we had the ability to see how many popular choice scarf pokemon there were before and after the introduction of Deoxys-E, we could see this.
Beyond that, what ipl, and many others are arguing with is the possible combinations of pokemon, and types of teams. I agree with this as well. There will always be certain types of teams that are popular in the metagame, as it shifts through cycles. But one must think, exactly how popular is this current "type" of team, and how viable are other styles of play? Deoxys-E is the bane of offensive teams, with its unmatched speed and great type coverage. Wobbuffet, on the other end, stalls out stall teams. With an ability to take away one of the very basic moves available to everyone, Wobbuffet adds a whole new dimension to OU that is very difficult to cope with since it is something you can't prepare for.
So in my opinion, centralisation is much more than just the number of pokemon considered OU. Like I said in Policy Review, we don't have all of the data needed to really tell if something is a overcentralising force or not.
my thoughts on this topic:
I see Deoxys-S as more centralizing than Garchomp when I make my teams, and I see Wobbuffet as worse for the health of the game than Garchomp.
Garchomp may perhaps be the best Pokemon in the game. Maybe a few mistakes were made in designing him, but i don't think he takes very many Pokemons jobs OR makes very many pokemon useless. He can be combatted in eye-for-an-eye fashion. An easy counter isnt available, but it's not necesarrily required. You just have to do a better job at executing your strategy than your opponent can do at executing his. fine. That's our job as competitive players, beating the toughest threats in the game.
Deoxys-S, all things considered, is not as scary or threatening as Garchomp. But I'd say he changes the game more. Deoxys-S takes a whole lot of Pokemon's jobs. Deoxys-S is the reason i do not use many fast-frail sweepers (theyre almost all weak to his attacks!!). Deoxys-S is the ultimate late game janitor. Why use another, with less speed and less coverage? Why slap a choice scarf on many things when Deoxys-S can do the same thing even FASTER without losing his freedom? Garchomp may be scarier to face, bujt he does not limit the number of SENSIBLE options in this way! I'd rate Deoxys-S as the most centralizing OU poke that I'm aware of.
Wobbuffet is a little different. He's definitely so good at what he does that he can change a match more than Deoxys, more than Garchomp. But he does not have the chance to be as "centralizing", simply because we cannot counter him, and nothing can do what he does. The problem with Wobbuffet is a little bit different. He simply cheapens the game's strategies by introducing an element that cannot be countered, predicted, etc. These are the things that make Pokemon what it is. Wobbuffet is anti Pokemon!
I don't need stats OR logs to back up my claims. Just take a look at Deoxys-S's stats, movepool, etc. See how many pokemon's jobs he does better (make sure to consider Choice Scarfers)! Take a look at Garchomp's. He's pretty unique, and while powerful, does not take too many jobs. From playing this and other games, it can take the average competitive player up to a YEAR to fully adapt AND adopt new strategies, like using a pokemon that's been recnetly unbanned OR reacting to it (im talking about Deoxys-S). Look how many pokemon that are used now that weren't used so much a year ago. People are slow. So usage statistics do NOT necesarilly invalidate my argument
Now usually, in most competitive games, I'm more on the Sirlin/Colin side of the fence. I usually think that games's most powerful strategies should be left alone, and only balanced through player's evolving strategies. This is why I don't support a ban on Garchomp.
However, I support a ban of Deoxys-S, and Wobbuffet. The reason is not because they are annoying or especially hard to deal with (like Garchomp), but simply because they make the game worse. We weren't given a game that can be played competitively without our own rulesets, but there isn't really an alternative game, so we'd rather modify this one than abandon it. Just look at sleep, OHKO, and evasion. OHKO and evasion aren't banned because they're "overcentralizing". They're banned because they make the game worse (from a strategical standpoint). I believe Wobbuffet was also banned for this reason originally, not because he would be the best or most used poke in the game. So I think those that truly want Wobbuffet rebanned should attack from that angle, and steer away from all this "centralization" discussion.
I see Deoxys-S as more centralizing than Garchomp when I make my teams, and I see Wobbuffet as worse for the health of the game than Garchomp.
Garchomp may perhaps be the best Pokemon in the game. Maybe a few mistakes were made in designing him, but i don't think he takes very many Pokemons jobs OR makes very many pokemon useless. He can be combatted in eye-for-an-eye fashion. An easy counter isnt available, but it's not necesarrily required. You just have to do a better job at executing your strategy than your opponent can do at executing his. fine. That's our job as competitive players, beating the toughest threats in the game.
Deoxys-S, all things considered, is not as scary or threatening as Garchomp. But I'd say he changes the game more. Deoxys-S takes a whole lot of Pokemon's jobs. Deoxys-S is the reason i do not use many fast-frail sweepers (theyre almost all weak to his attacks!!). Deoxys-S is the ultimate late game janitor. Why use another, with less speed and less coverage? Why slap a choice scarf on many things when Deoxys-S can do the same thing even FASTER without losing his freedom? Garchomp may be scarier to face, bujt he does not limit the number of SENSIBLE options in this way! I'd rate Deoxys-S as the most centralizing OU poke that I'm aware of.
Wobbuffet is a little different. He's definitely so good at what he does that he can change a match more than Deoxys, more than Garchomp. But he does not have the chance to be as "centralizing", simply because we cannot counter him, and nothing can do what he does. The problem with Wobbuffet is a little bit different. He simply cheapens the game's strategies by introducing an element that cannot be countered, predicted, etc. These are the things that make Pokemon what it is. Wobbuffet is anti Pokemon!
I don't need stats OR logs to back up my claims. Just take a look at Deoxys-S's stats, movepool, etc. See how many pokemon's jobs he does better (make sure to consider Choice Scarfers)! Take a look at Garchomp's. He's pretty unique, and while powerful, does not take too many jobs. From playing this and other games, it can take the average competitive player up to a YEAR to fully adapt AND adopt new strategies, like using a pokemon that's been recnetly unbanned OR reacting to it (im talking about Deoxys-S). Look how many pokemon that are used now that weren't used so much a year ago. People are slow. So usage statistics do NOT necesarilly invalidate my argument
Now usually, in most competitive games, I'm more on the Sirlin/Colin side of the fence. I usually think that games's most powerful strategies should be left alone, and only balanced through player's evolving strategies. This is why I don't support a ban on Garchomp.
However, I support a ban of Deoxys-S, and Wobbuffet. The reason is not because they are annoying or especially hard to deal with (like Garchomp), but simply because they make the game worse. We weren't given a game that can be played competitively without our own rulesets, but there isn't really an alternative game, so we'd rather modify this one than abandon it. Just look at sleep, OHKO, and evasion. OHKO and evasion aren't banned because they're "overcentralizing". They're banned because they make the game worse (from a strategical standpoint). I believe Wobbuffet was also banned for this reason originally, not because he would be the best or most used poke in the game. So I think those that truly want Wobbuffet rebanned should attack from that angle, and steer away from all this "centralization" discussion.
Err, obviously I wasn't around when these rules were implemented but i'm fairly certain sleep clause is there so the game isn't centered around fast sleepers (imagine like a Gengar putting everything to sleep and killing anything that decides to stay in hoping for sleep to wear off), and OHKO/Evasion were banned because they decrease the skill of the game, which I guess technically "makes the game worse" but that reasoning isn't why they were removed.
SirHandsome6, I don't think that your argument regarding Deoxys-e is valid. I can't think of any pokemon who have had their roles usurped by Deoxys-e, other than maybe Azelf (though Explosion, Nasty Plot, U-Turn, and Levitate give Azelf other purposes). You can't seriously say that Infernape, Starmie, Weavile, and Gengar have similar roles to Deoxys-e. Deoxys is a unique pokemon, in the same classification as you have placed Garchomp, who has a unique role and unique counters. Just because it does well late game is not a reason to ban it; by that logic Lucario and Infernape, who have wide movepools and limited counters, would have to be banned as well.
It may be true that deoxys makes choice scarfer less usable, but that isn't a huge loss for the metagame, and they still give an excellent element of surprise which should not be underestimated.
On a separate note, I like that you understand that overcentralization is not the only reason to ban. A lot of people seem to be stuck on the idea that any ban-worthy pokes must be overcentralizing, when this is simply not necessarily the case.
It may be true that deoxys makes choice scarfer less usable, but that isn't a huge loss for the metagame, and they still give an excellent element of surprise which should not be underestimated.
On a separate note, I like that you understand that overcentralization is not the only reason to ban. A lot of people seem to be stuck on the idea that any ban-worthy pokes must be overcentralizing, when this is simply not necessarily the case.
I haven't read every post in this thread but it doesn't really matter if my thoughts parallel those of someone else. I do think that will take a much, much larger effort than most people can see, like the 9+ months referenced early. I think a lot of the "overcentralization" issue could be solved on an alternate ladder, but I question our community's focus on and dedication to such a long-term project when it has to be constantly reminded that the only way to get Wobbuffet moved back to the uber tier is to use it and that has steadily been the exact opposite of what has happened over the last four months (#39 -> #39 -> #43 -> #46 in weighted usage, February through May).
It therefore is clear to me that our efforts would have to be that much more focused over the long period of time it takes to determine whether a pokemon "centralized the metagame so much that it squelched variety to a widely undesirable level". Which means that if the number of "viable pokemon", if we are even able to determine this accurately, only goes up by one or two in the secondary ladder, is that really "better"? Just some things to think about. I have no doubt a test would benefit us, but we don't necessarily want to compromise the first ladder by conducting it there, and regardless we would need to really, really focus over the long haul on what we are doing and what we are looking for, and I seriously have my doubts about the community's focus and dedication towards serious, long-term projects like this given the whole Wobbuffet issue over the last 4+ months.
It therefore is clear to me that our efforts would have to be that much more focused over the long period of time it takes to determine whether a pokemon "centralized the metagame so much that it squelched variety to a widely undesirable level". Which means that if the number of "viable pokemon", if we are even able to determine this accurately, only goes up by one or two in the secondary ladder, is that really "better"? Just some things to think about. I have no doubt a test would benefit us, but we don't necessarily want to compromise the first ladder by conducting it there, and regardless we would need to really, really focus over the long haul on what we are doing and what we are looking for, and I seriously have my doubts about the community's focus and dedication towards serious, long-term projects like this given the whole Wobbuffet issue over the last 4+ months.
The discussion was temporarily moving to Wobbuffet, so I'd like to take this post to quote what I posted in the Wobbuffet thread. Don't worry: I get into matters related to this thread's topics.
I do think I am overlooking several things in my overcentralization definition, though, so feel free to pick that apart while I try, right now, to think of the holes to close. (if I don't fall asleep first... @_@)
I do think I am overlooking several things in my overcentralization definition, though, so feel free to pick that apart while I try, right now, to think of the holes to close. (if I don't fall asleep first... @_@)
Well, there's a lot to address in this thread so I will by no means be able to cover it all. I read everything in here so far but I'm sure I'll repeat something in my ramblings so please forgive me. As fair warning I wrote this the other day just to sort of add my two cents.
I believe somebody touched on this already (if not in this thread then somewhere else), but as any metagame progresses it will always move toward centralization. I've seen both Advance and DP develop from day one and I've done my fair share of back reading on early GSC so I feel comfortable making this statement. The early stages have always been about discovering what strategies translate well from theory to practice. From there, people gravitate towards the best strategy in practice because, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there comes a point where everyone is playing to win (aside: an example of this is the huge influx of BP Celebi teams at one point in Advance). Pokemon can only have two outcomes: win or lose. I'm discounting draws here because the whole point of competition is to find out who is better not who is equal. Nobody competes with the goal of losing in mind and nobody is looking for the team that loses most efficiently. It is usually the exact opposite. That said, I don't think anyone can hope to achieve total decentralization in a game that will always work against that. There may be many optimum strategies but certain specifics will tend to dominate others because they are slightly more efficient.
I think what we want to avoid, though, is having one strategy that everyone focuses around, be it by using it or using counter teams for it. In that scenario, we're left with two main options and the less ideal third option. The two biggies are obviously "the best strategy" and the "counter best strategy." The third option is to have complete disregard for what's going on and accept the inevitable increase in losses which isn't very appealing. You could make an argument that most teams combine elements of "best strategy" and "counter best strategy" but I think that's an even worse scenario since that means all teams are essentially the same.
This seems to be where we're at now. Garchomp is clearly the best pokemon in the OU metagame, bar none. It can function well in various physical attacking niches and requires a lot of effort to work around. Most teams carry it, as evidenced by the stats each month, and it's definitely a pokemon every team builder keeps in mind. It's the total package. I don't want to label Garchomp as "strategy" per se but it's hard to argue against the logic of using Sandstream and a counter lure so you can go about neutralizing the Garchomp counter and then sweep using Swords Dance with the best OU pokemon in the game, occasionally getting help from Sand Veil. Now the question becomes "is this the only strategy we're using and attempting to counter?" Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes despite how apathetic I am to the whole Garchomp debate. I think a similar case could be made for Wobbuffet (especially when you read TAY's log in the Wobb thread) but because of the mass refusal to take advantage of its abilities, it's not as apparently seen and much harder to prove.
I personally like Garchomp and would hate to see it banned but at the same time I agree with people like IPL that it vastly limits team combinations and in a way some of the strategies we can use. The main reason I would hate to see it banned is because part of me doesn't mind having a very stable and almost stale metagame. When there's few strategies to worry about, it places more emphasis on battling skill which is never a bad thing in my opinion. However, skill in battle is only part of the equation and I also feel that we should never turn our back on team building. Keeping Garchomp only limits our creativity and options when we're trying to maximize victories forming our teams. I don't mean to turn this into a "what to do about Garchomp" post but I think Garchomp is the main reason we're even discussing centralization.
Preferably, we need a scenario much like whoever compared pokemon to M:TG where we have fluctuation between a few multiple strategies that don't necessarily focus on countering each other but are all equally viable in their own right. People will inevitably try to form counter teams but with multiple main teams to contend with this becomes more difficult. I'm not sure if this is possible or not, but I think that's what many people mean when they talk about decentralizing the metagame. If we can get to this point by just removing Garchomp is impossible to say.. but what damage would it do to test it? It's not like we don't have time to toy with how we want to play. Why do we need a set in stone metagame? If anything, we probably won't find that balance that we're looking for but we'll shake things up enough on a consistent basis to keep the game from becoming centralized to the point we're at now. The majority is clamoring for variety and testing different OU rulesets is an easy way to give it to them.
I believe somebody touched on this already (if not in this thread then somewhere else), but as any metagame progresses it will always move toward centralization. I've seen both Advance and DP develop from day one and I've done my fair share of back reading on early GSC so I feel comfortable making this statement. The early stages have always been about discovering what strategies translate well from theory to practice. From there, people gravitate towards the best strategy in practice because, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there comes a point where everyone is playing to win (aside: an example of this is the huge influx of BP Celebi teams at one point in Advance). Pokemon can only have two outcomes: win or lose. I'm discounting draws here because the whole point of competition is to find out who is better not who is equal. Nobody competes with the goal of losing in mind and nobody is looking for the team that loses most efficiently. It is usually the exact opposite. That said, I don't think anyone can hope to achieve total decentralization in a game that will always work against that. There may be many optimum strategies but certain specifics will tend to dominate others because they are slightly more efficient.
I think what we want to avoid, though, is having one strategy that everyone focuses around, be it by using it or using counter teams for it. In that scenario, we're left with two main options and the less ideal third option. The two biggies are obviously "the best strategy" and the "counter best strategy." The third option is to have complete disregard for what's going on and accept the inevitable increase in losses which isn't very appealing. You could make an argument that most teams combine elements of "best strategy" and "counter best strategy" but I think that's an even worse scenario since that means all teams are essentially the same.
This seems to be where we're at now. Garchomp is clearly the best pokemon in the OU metagame, bar none. It can function well in various physical attacking niches and requires a lot of effort to work around. Most teams carry it, as evidenced by the stats each month, and it's definitely a pokemon every team builder keeps in mind. It's the total package. I don't want to label Garchomp as "strategy" per se but it's hard to argue against the logic of using Sandstream and a counter lure so you can go about neutralizing the Garchomp counter and then sweep using Swords Dance with the best OU pokemon in the game, occasionally getting help from Sand Veil. Now the question becomes "is this the only strategy we're using and attempting to counter?" Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes despite how apathetic I am to the whole Garchomp debate. I think a similar case could be made for Wobbuffet (especially when you read TAY's log in the Wobb thread) but because of the mass refusal to take advantage of its abilities, it's not as apparently seen and much harder to prove.
I personally like Garchomp and would hate to see it banned but at the same time I agree with people like IPL that it vastly limits team combinations and in a way some of the strategies we can use. The main reason I would hate to see it banned is because part of me doesn't mind having a very stable and almost stale metagame. When there's few strategies to worry about, it places more emphasis on battling skill which is never a bad thing in my opinion. However, skill in battle is only part of the equation and I also feel that we should never turn our back on team building. Keeping Garchomp only limits our creativity and options when we're trying to maximize victories forming our teams. I don't mean to turn this into a "what to do about Garchomp" post but I think Garchomp is the main reason we're even discussing centralization.
Preferably, we need a scenario much like whoever compared pokemon to M:TG where we have fluctuation between a few multiple strategies that don't necessarily focus on countering each other but are all equally viable in their own right. People will inevitably try to form counter teams but with multiple main teams to contend with this becomes more difficult. I'm not sure if this is possible or not, but I think that's what many people mean when they talk about decentralizing the metagame. If we can get to this point by just removing Garchomp is impossible to say.. but what damage would it do to test it? It's not like we don't have time to toy with how we want to play. Why do we need a set in stone metagame? If anything, we probably won't find that balance that we're looking for but we'll shake things up enough on a consistent basis to keep the game from becoming centralized to the point we're at now. The majority is clamoring for variety and testing different OU rulesets is an easy way to give it to them.
Like I said in my post Cards, there is more to centralisation that just the pure number of pokemon usable. Deoxys-E and Wobbuffet have quite possibly centralised OU, but in a different way. Movesets and team types should be taken into account when considering the impact that something has had on the metagame. So while Deoxys-E and Wobbuffet only centralised the actual number of OU pokemon by two (49 -> 47), taking a look at what movesets/items/teams were viable before and after the introduction of these two pokemon, you'll see a much different result. So to add the definition of centralisation when it finally comes around.
1.) Teams/Pokemon combinations. What types of teams were viable before the introduction/banishment of this pokemon? Has this pokemon influenced the types of teams past the normal "fluxes" of the metagame? Has this pokemon rendered certain styles of teams/play usless?
2.) Movesets/Items. Has the pokemon made certain sets less viable to the point where only a few pokemon can use them? An example here is the impact Deoxys-E made on Choice Scarf users, and Wobbuffet on Choice users in general. Did they make these items more of a liability compared to what they were before?
1.) Teams/Pokemon combinations. What types of teams were viable before the introduction/banishment of this pokemon? Has this pokemon influenced the types of teams past the normal "fluxes" of the metagame? Has this pokemon rendered certain styles of teams/play usless?
2.) Movesets/Items. Has the pokemon made certain sets less viable to the point where only a few pokemon can use them? An example here is the impact Deoxys-E made on Choice Scarf users, and Wobbuffet on Choice users in general. Did they make these items more of a liability compared to what they were before?
I haven't read the post comparing Pokemon to MTG, but anyone who played back in Mirrodin should recall Skullclamp being banned simply because it was extraordinarily useful in every viable competitive deck (Wizards of the Coast cited a PTQ in which the entire Top 8 ran four skullclamps, except for one deck which ran three).
I'm not good enough with statistics to figure this out exactly, but I imagine that based on weighted averages the chance of running into Garchomp at the top of the shoddy ladder is very high. This is a different kind of centralization, and one which I believe should be taken into account. Does it reduce strategy in the metagame when nearly every high-level competitive team runs Garchomp? I would say yes, but I will leave that open for discussion for now.
I'm not good enough with statistics to figure this out exactly, but I imagine that based on weighted averages the chance of running into Garchomp at the top of the shoddy ladder is very high. This is a different kind of centralization, and one which I believe should be taken into account. Does it reduce strategy in the metagame when nearly every high-level competitive team runs Garchomp? I would say yes, but I will leave that open for discussion for now.
yeah, sleep is definitely a centralizing force, but i did not say otherwise... i onlky went on to talk about OHKO/evasion. but i can see how you got confused. I menitoned sleep in one sentence, then went on to talk only about OHKO and evasion. so i made that confusing, and thats my bad.
but yes, OHKO/evasion WERE banned because they make the game worse to most competitive players (From a strategical standpoint). to say that they decrease the skill of the game is just being more specific, and i believe i mentioned that as well.
TAY said:
you know, i think my attitude on deoxys may be changing and i may agree with you. ill have to actually use him more to make up my mind. but i never meant that he should be banned befcause he's good or even the best at what he does. If that were how i operated, I'd support a Garchomp ban. but it was because i speculated that Deoxys has more potential for "over-centralizing" the meta-game than any other pokemon.
Also, I love what Carl said (sorry in advance if i misread or misunderstood your words, im in a hurry) about some degree of centralization being not onloy natural, but good for competitive play. If every pokemon and strategy were viable then the game would be wet, wild, and fun, but think about how it would affect the strategic aspect of team building. We only have 6 pokemon to use, and we could never even come anywhere near protecting ourselves from every strategy! This may already be the case, but think about how much worse it would get. Whether ot not you couold win against any given team would be so random. It would become a much more casual game
Allow me to remind you all that this is not a "why is X Uber and Y not?" discussion - do not derail this topic.
There’s been many issues surrounding the metagame as of late. We have arguments and debates, although more so arguments, about whether or not Garchomp is uber, whether or not Wobbuffet should be rebanned, and should some long standing uber-tier Pokemon be moved down, or at the very least be tested. Well I don’t care about any of that, but I’ll try to address it without any bias or ignorant thoughts.
Although I don’t care about the debates itself, I do feel that everyone has a different opinion due to one important factor that no one seems to mention, and that is each own person’s playing style. Now granted, most users here at the moment are a product of this new generation of Pokemon, Diamond and Pearl, but coming from someone who’s been here since the very beginning (2001), each generation has a bit of itself in everyone’s style. We have RBY which gave us the style of luck. It’s quite fun to spam Thunder Wave/Air Slash Togekiss and Brightpowder Garchomps, but it was a lot more fun when your critical hit rate was based on your speed and anything had a chance to be good, or you could just play Lesm46 (imagine playing 6 Garchomps when you lead a Tyranitar). Then along came in GSC, and it brought the wonder strategy of stall. Imagine if abilities were in GSC, Zapdos, Raikou, and Suicune were used on every single team, up to the questionable statistics of Blissey nowadays, who by the way dominated then as well. Those who complain about stalling teams nowadays, do you know what it is like to sit through 64 turns of Growl from each Pokemon while playing Celia? Then if any of you came in before DP, it would most likely be from the RSE era. RSE brought us a mix of everything, whether it was stalling thanks to the aforementioned ability Pressure, or to the introduction of Choice Band to have a sweeping galore and Magneton to back it up. DP is very close to how RSE is, except it’s expanded with about a hundred extra Pokemon and some change in mechanics, such as Taunt.
Now who am I to tell anyone anything or even voice my opinion? Not anyone you should probably listen to for the most part if I put you up to a task, as evident by my wonderful profile page, which courtesy to moderators, have 11 former infraction points (although you won’t be able to tell so hopefully you don’t ignorantly click on my name and check it out before reading this line, but in case you do, sucker). Don’t think that me being a senior member of this community, the fact that I joined 2-3 years just at Smogon, much less the Pokemon community as a whole, before any of you did has anything to me voicing my opinions. I’ve been a former moderator here, multiple badge holders (don’t be fooled, there use to be more), countless feuds with higher administrators, but most importantly, I’ve been lucky enough (or unfortunately enough) been able to witness the coming and goings of all of the online Pokemon battling community. So basically, you should probably listen to this if only because I’ve been through all and seen it all.
As we get back on track, I mentioned that your playing style has a lot to do with how you handle certain things. While I still don’t care about the debates, I will use it as an example. Let’s start with Garchomp. We all can comprehend why it’s too good for OU, or not good enough to be banished to ubers. We can at least agree upon it’s qualities, for less of a word to fit it. But wait, let’s back it up a bit. For the sake of this whole post, I’m now acknowledging the words over-centralization, arbitrary, and statistic as much as I would a user as Curt in my buddy list (this means they don’t exist to me other than to use to point out this rule to you, in case you’re kind of…thick). Anyways, as we build our teams, we sometimes only use “revenge killers” as our main defense. Let’s face it, sometimes you just can’t beat a SD Heracross (for example), so your only choice is to let it kill something while doing whatever damage you can and bring out your next thing to kill it. One thing that just amazes me that is everyone forget that you don’t have to use super effective attacks to be a revenge killer. I just sit here thinking and wondering how forgetful people can be when they complain “we have to get rid of Ice Beam first, and then send in a faster Ice Beamer to kill it.” Okay genius how about just send in a ScarfHeatran and use Dragon Pulse, or ScarfHeracross to use Close Combat. I guarantee you that you’ll do a rough 60% at the minimum. (Wanna know a secret, if you know it’s Yache, than why not Psycho Boost the thing rather than Ice Beam it? PB will do 7-9% more.) What is the issue here? Now all you anti-Garchomp users, don’t get flustered, I will turn to your view a bit later, just hear me out (plus if you read this whole thing, you might forget what you wanted to say so I might win with this anyways). This is how the offensive minded player thinks. If you your main form of defense is to sacrifice something to bring something else out and then kill it, then Garchomp should most definitely not need be added to ubers. Chances are you use your own, and you know perfectly well how to use it. (If we use logic in Pokemon, if two users uses Garchomp and they don’t tie, then Garchomp is definitely stoppable.) In an offensive player’s team, their not afraid to sacrifice Garchomp. It’s all about how you play. (<- You’ll be reading this term a lot here on out.) Perhaps the bigger picture to set up Lucario. Perhaps the bigger picture was to let Metagross sweep. It doesn’t matter what your plan was with the offensive team, cause the ultimate goal is one of your sweeper will win the game for you. Garchomp is just another piece in your artillery. So how do people feel when they easily dispose of Garchomp, yet get raped by another Pokemon? Do they just admit to being inferior to the other player? This style of play goes along with Wobbuffet as well. If you’re trying to save something by stating up, your opening the door for other users to stat up on you. I view this like the game show “Who Wants to be A Millionaire?” What is the point of having a lifeline for a later question, if you can’t even get past this question? Do you honestly think you’re going to win if you give a stat up Pokemon to stat up right now? Honestly, I see no acceptable reason to why you would attempt to do that. You know it, they know it, once you give up that little room for them to operate, you’re fucked, defeated, raped, whatever. Now if you continue your assault and do as much damage as you can in those 2 turns they use to Encore and Counter/MC back your attack, you prevent the stat up, although you sacrifice something, and actually have a chance of winning. You have 6 sweepers, none especially more important than another since the final goal was to win with a sweeper, not giving a shit which one it is. If your playing style is all offense, why would Wobbuffet ever be an issue as well? Wobbuffet want to come in the supposedly uber Garchomp at the same time? Earthquake the bitch twice and take it down to 30% and finish up with Lucario.
Now not everyone likes to use all offense. You feel as if you rather try to protect against every single threat out there. Guess what? You can’t. Now this isn’t a persuasion to get you to stop using stall team, but to just let you know, you don’t always to have everything covered. I personally don’t understand why a stall team would have problems with Garchomp, ever. You have Cresselia, a great switch in always to any Garchomp regardless. You claim Garchomp has CB Crunch? Good job, now I know my Stealth Rock, Toxic Spikes, and Spikes and Skarmory will definitely win. They had a Magnezone and I forgot Shed Shell? Gee, you’re telling me they use another Pokemon, to get rid of a Pokemon that the first Pokemon had a problem against? You want to play Digimon now? We can Digivolve and Digivolve and Digivolve and eventually fuse ourselves with them and see who is physically stronger and have a little lesson in Darwinism going on here (handicap people would probably disagree with this). Anyways, I don’t comprehend how stall teams would ever have problems with Garchomp, not with SDYacheChomp, and definitely not with ScarfChomp. If you couldn’t handle the most common Pokemon in the first place, I’m wiling to bet you’d probably would’ve lost to CBDragonite as well. But with stables such as Toxic Spikes, Skarmory and Cresselia as well as Weezing, stall teams should not be claiming uber against this dragon. Are you complaining that the Pokemon is doing too much damage to your tank even though you’ll win the match up against it? Does that make it uber? This isn’t the Elite 4 where everything always has to be healthy. Is your goal to win 6-0 or to win? Now Wobbuffet is a whole different story. It’s alright to give up a physical wall such as Weezing to stop Garchomp, because it did it’s job, but Wobbuffet does pick its spot and takes one thing out beyond your control. I realize that might seem uber, but doesn’t certain teams have certain things that pick apart the team? We’ve already establish you can’t stop everything, so this holds true. Although I can see that it would be uber as a whole as it would force the entire metagame into a offense only mode (but that would mean no more stall teams, so no more Wobbuffet, so people will try to sneak by with a stall team and then people will come back with Wobbuffet, well what do you know, people are actually competent. How about that?). Now going back to the way you use stall teams. It’s all about command and control, and if something you can’t control is there, then you’re going to bitch about it. Makes sense to me, the circle of life, etc, etc.
Now then there’s the kind of teams who like to lure things out to kill it, before accomplishing the sweep. This is quite the most common type of teams people use, as it seems to be consistent no matter what phrase the metagame is in. I remember back in RSE, I used a multipurpose Pursuit+Hidden Power Grass Tyranitar, which took care of Swampert for my Metagross to sweep, and Gengar for my RestTalk CurseLax to sweep. However well that strategy works, in DP it’s hard to pull off. Why might you ask? You can’t stop everything. I can easily sit here and build a 2 minute team centered around a Pokemon, but would it matter since it will lose to another team. For example, I can build a team all around a Lucario sweep I want, but I might never ever put in the possibility that I’d get swept by a Nidoking (this is only an example, I‘d kill myself if I got swept by a Nidoking, much less a Nidoqueen.) This seems to me like a softer stall team with a sweeper than anything, so with that, you probably still shouldn’t worry about Garchomp. (For the record my 2 minute team would’ve been: Lucario, Spiritomb, Forretress, Blissey, Gyarados, Celebi. I honestly typed that from 12:14 AM to 12:15 AM but I‘m rounding up seconds since I‘m so understanding.)
Then we have another thing going on here. Theme teams. No I don’t mean your Naruto, Christmas, Mono Pure Ghost, Sailor Moon, Pokemon teams. Oh. Anyways, it’s about the Explosion teams, the Trick Room teams, the Rain Dance teams. I personally believe that these have the least issues with Garchomp or Wobbuffet, as you should have many set uppers of what you want to accomplish, and many sweepers to take advantage of, or if you’re using an Explosion team just blow up the motherfuckers.
Now at the end of this all, it seems like I’m largely against Garchomp being sent to ubers. And why should it? Is it because of the luck? It has to be because of the luck, but sometimes, luck happens. If luck is the only variable in which determines that a Pokemon should be banned, then you know what those cynical people would say, ban all luck based Pokemon. (Don’t get me started on Serene Grace!) However, I do see how unreasonable that is, that to ban all that have one trait because one is just better at using it. If we go down the line of battling though, no team is undefeated, and you will lose as a result of luck, whether it’s that of a freeze, a Ice Beam that could’ve froze that missed against Garchomp, or a critical hit. I wish I could say deal with it, but some people just seem to not embrace it. It’s kind of like a young kid who could make his ball team win every time if he just did the dirty work instead of going for personal stats and glory. I’d have to say Garchomp is nowhere near uber, regardless of what argument you bring up, it will always have holes, just as reasons why it shouldn’t be. Remember guys, it’s not like Garchomp is Exodia. If there was a Yu-Gi of Pokemon, he’d just bust out a new made up move the writers just wrote and win. You don’t automatically win if you have a Garchomp (same thing applies to all ubers but come on, work with me here).
Wobbuffet on the other hand however, that simply put is uber if only because it takes the control out of players completely. Although, one thing I’ve yet to seen is two teams that use Wobbuffet against each other. Who wins that? But as we move along, we can see that Wobbuffet should be banned not because it automatically kills something, or could potentially kill something, but it seems too much like a trump card. Wobbuffet is kind of like Crush Card, anything you have over 1500 in attack, dead. In this metaphor, 1500+ monsters would be stalling Pokemon, while all the offensive beast are the lesser attack ones (yes I realize the irony). Myself personally, my stall teams don’t mind Wobbuffet at all, but I’m not going to put that into any argument cause then we’d have wiseass say that I imply they’re not good to win and make me seem elitist (which I am) but I rather not go down that path, but at least you know you can still win!!!
Other thoughts on my mind however off subject they are. New users can easily question the intelligence and knowledge of older users, and you know why? Because if the new user gets put in their place, they’re forgotten. The older users, should they lose face, they’re here to stay, so they’ll be known forever as not having such authoritative opinions.
Even if you’re a dumbass now, doesn’t mean you have to be a dumbass later. You have no idea how many chances you have so stop being ignorant. If someone says something you disagree with, just let it go. I mean I once had a 40 reply each PM with Jumpman over an infraction. However fun you might think that goes, well actually that was fun but my inbox got purged during a banning…Anyhow…I guess that’s about it. You might think I’m pretty awesome. You might be to, but I doubt as much as me. Remember, they’re obviously my opinion, so you can’t tell me I’m wrong. =] I love being not wrong.
Although I don’t care about the debates itself, I do feel that everyone has a different opinion due to one important factor that no one seems to mention, and that is each own person’s playing style. Now granted, most users here at the moment are a product of this new generation of Pokemon, Diamond and Pearl, but coming from someone who’s been here since the very beginning (2001), each generation has a bit of itself in everyone’s style. We have RBY which gave us the style of luck. It’s quite fun to spam Thunder Wave/Air Slash Togekiss and Brightpowder Garchomps, but it was a lot more fun when your critical hit rate was based on your speed and anything had a chance to be good, or you could just play Lesm46 (imagine playing 6 Garchomps when you lead a Tyranitar). Then along came in GSC, and it brought the wonder strategy of stall. Imagine if abilities were in GSC, Zapdos, Raikou, and Suicune were used on every single team, up to the questionable statistics of Blissey nowadays, who by the way dominated then as well. Those who complain about stalling teams nowadays, do you know what it is like to sit through 64 turns of Growl from each Pokemon while playing Celia? Then if any of you came in before DP, it would most likely be from the RSE era. RSE brought us a mix of everything, whether it was stalling thanks to the aforementioned ability Pressure, or to the introduction of Choice Band to have a sweeping galore and Magneton to back it up. DP is very close to how RSE is, except it’s expanded with about a hundred extra Pokemon and some change in mechanics, such as Taunt.
Now who am I to tell anyone anything or even voice my opinion? Not anyone you should probably listen to for the most part if I put you up to a task, as evident by my wonderful profile page, which courtesy to moderators, have 11 former infraction points (although you won’t be able to tell so hopefully you don’t ignorantly click on my name and check it out before reading this line, but in case you do, sucker). Don’t think that me being a senior member of this community, the fact that I joined 2-3 years just at Smogon, much less the Pokemon community as a whole, before any of you did has anything to me voicing my opinions. I’ve been a former moderator here, multiple badge holders (don’t be fooled, there use to be more), countless feuds with higher administrators, but most importantly, I’ve been lucky enough (or unfortunately enough) been able to witness the coming and goings of all of the online Pokemon battling community. So basically, you should probably listen to this if only because I’ve been through all and seen it all.
As we get back on track, I mentioned that your playing style has a lot to do with how you handle certain things. While I still don’t care about the debates, I will use it as an example. Let’s start with Garchomp. We all can comprehend why it’s too good for OU, or not good enough to be banished to ubers. We can at least agree upon it’s qualities, for less of a word to fit it. But wait, let’s back it up a bit. For the sake of this whole post, I’m now acknowledging the words over-centralization, arbitrary, and statistic as much as I would a user as Curt in my buddy list (this means they don’t exist to me other than to use to point out this rule to you, in case you’re kind of…thick). Anyways, as we build our teams, we sometimes only use “revenge killers” as our main defense. Let’s face it, sometimes you just can’t beat a SD Heracross (for example), so your only choice is to let it kill something while doing whatever damage you can and bring out your next thing to kill it. One thing that just amazes me that is everyone forget that you don’t have to use super effective attacks to be a revenge killer. I just sit here thinking and wondering how forgetful people can be when they complain “we have to get rid of Ice Beam first, and then send in a faster Ice Beamer to kill it.” Okay genius how about just send in a ScarfHeatran and use Dragon Pulse, or ScarfHeracross to use Close Combat. I guarantee you that you’ll do a rough 60% at the minimum. (Wanna know a secret, if you know it’s Yache, than why not Psycho Boost the thing rather than Ice Beam it? PB will do 7-9% more.) What is the issue here? Now all you anti-Garchomp users, don’t get flustered, I will turn to your view a bit later, just hear me out (plus if you read this whole thing, you might forget what you wanted to say so I might win with this anyways). This is how the offensive minded player thinks. If you your main form of defense is to sacrifice something to bring something else out and then kill it, then Garchomp should most definitely not need be added to ubers. Chances are you use your own, and you know perfectly well how to use it. (If we use logic in Pokemon, if two users uses Garchomp and they don’t tie, then Garchomp is definitely stoppable.) In an offensive player’s team, their not afraid to sacrifice Garchomp. It’s all about how you play. (<- You’ll be reading this term a lot here on out.) Perhaps the bigger picture to set up Lucario. Perhaps the bigger picture was to let Metagross sweep. It doesn’t matter what your plan was with the offensive team, cause the ultimate goal is one of your sweeper will win the game for you. Garchomp is just another piece in your artillery. So how do people feel when they easily dispose of Garchomp, yet get raped by another Pokemon? Do they just admit to being inferior to the other player? This style of play goes along with Wobbuffet as well. If you’re trying to save something by stating up, your opening the door for other users to stat up on you. I view this like the game show “Who Wants to be A Millionaire?” What is the point of having a lifeline for a later question, if you can’t even get past this question? Do you honestly think you’re going to win if you give a stat up Pokemon to stat up right now? Honestly, I see no acceptable reason to why you would attempt to do that. You know it, they know it, once you give up that little room for them to operate, you’re fucked, defeated, raped, whatever. Now if you continue your assault and do as much damage as you can in those 2 turns they use to Encore and Counter/MC back your attack, you prevent the stat up, although you sacrifice something, and actually have a chance of winning. You have 6 sweepers, none especially more important than another since the final goal was to win with a sweeper, not giving a shit which one it is. If your playing style is all offense, why would Wobbuffet ever be an issue as well? Wobbuffet want to come in the supposedly uber Garchomp at the same time? Earthquake the bitch twice and take it down to 30% and finish up with Lucario.
Now not everyone likes to use all offense. You feel as if you rather try to protect against every single threat out there. Guess what? You can’t. Now this isn’t a persuasion to get you to stop using stall team, but to just let you know, you don’t always to have everything covered. I personally don’t understand why a stall team would have problems with Garchomp, ever. You have Cresselia, a great switch in always to any Garchomp regardless. You claim Garchomp has CB Crunch? Good job, now I know my Stealth Rock, Toxic Spikes, and Spikes and Skarmory will definitely win. They had a Magnezone and I forgot Shed Shell? Gee, you’re telling me they use another Pokemon, to get rid of a Pokemon that the first Pokemon had a problem against? You want to play Digimon now? We can Digivolve and Digivolve and Digivolve and eventually fuse ourselves with them and see who is physically stronger and have a little lesson in Darwinism going on here (handicap people would probably disagree with this). Anyways, I don’t comprehend how stall teams would ever have problems with Garchomp, not with SDYacheChomp, and definitely not with ScarfChomp. If you couldn’t handle the most common Pokemon in the first place, I’m wiling to bet you’d probably would’ve lost to CBDragonite as well. But with stables such as Toxic Spikes, Skarmory and Cresselia as well as Weezing, stall teams should not be claiming uber against this dragon. Are you complaining that the Pokemon is doing too much damage to your tank even though you’ll win the match up against it? Does that make it uber? This isn’t the Elite 4 where everything always has to be healthy. Is your goal to win 6-0 or to win? Now Wobbuffet is a whole different story. It’s alright to give up a physical wall such as Weezing to stop Garchomp, because it did it’s job, but Wobbuffet does pick its spot and takes one thing out beyond your control. I realize that might seem uber, but doesn’t certain teams have certain things that pick apart the team? We’ve already establish you can’t stop everything, so this holds true. Although I can see that it would be uber as a whole as it would force the entire metagame into a offense only mode (but that would mean no more stall teams, so no more Wobbuffet, so people will try to sneak by with a stall team and then people will come back with Wobbuffet, well what do you know, people are actually competent. How about that?). Now going back to the way you use stall teams. It’s all about command and control, and if something you can’t control is there, then you’re going to bitch about it. Makes sense to me, the circle of life, etc, etc.
Now then there’s the kind of teams who like to lure things out to kill it, before accomplishing the sweep. This is quite the most common type of teams people use, as it seems to be consistent no matter what phrase the metagame is in. I remember back in RSE, I used a multipurpose Pursuit+Hidden Power Grass Tyranitar, which took care of Swampert for my Metagross to sweep, and Gengar for my RestTalk CurseLax to sweep. However well that strategy works, in DP it’s hard to pull off. Why might you ask? You can’t stop everything. I can easily sit here and build a 2 minute team centered around a Pokemon, but would it matter since it will lose to another team. For example, I can build a team all around a Lucario sweep I want, but I might never ever put in the possibility that I’d get swept by a Nidoking (this is only an example, I‘d kill myself if I got swept by a Nidoking, much less a Nidoqueen.) This seems to me like a softer stall team with a sweeper than anything, so with that, you probably still shouldn’t worry about Garchomp. (For the record my 2 minute team would’ve been: Lucario, Spiritomb, Forretress, Blissey, Gyarados, Celebi. I honestly typed that from 12:14 AM to 12:15 AM but I‘m rounding up seconds since I‘m so understanding.)
Then we have another thing going on here. Theme teams. No I don’t mean your Naruto, Christmas, Mono Pure Ghost, Sailor Moon, Pokemon teams. Oh. Anyways, it’s about the Explosion teams, the Trick Room teams, the Rain Dance teams. I personally believe that these have the least issues with Garchomp or Wobbuffet, as you should have many set uppers of what you want to accomplish, and many sweepers to take advantage of, or if you’re using an Explosion team just blow up the motherfuckers.
Now at the end of this all, it seems like I’m largely against Garchomp being sent to ubers. And why should it? Is it because of the luck? It has to be because of the luck, but sometimes, luck happens. If luck is the only variable in which determines that a Pokemon should be banned, then you know what those cynical people would say, ban all luck based Pokemon. (Don’t get me started on Serene Grace!) However, I do see how unreasonable that is, that to ban all that have one trait because one is just better at using it. If we go down the line of battling though, no team is undefeated, and you will lose as a result of luck, whether it’s that of a freeze, a Ice Beam that could’ve froze that missed against Garchomp, or a critical hit. I wish I could say deal with it, but some people just seem to not embrace it. It’s kind of like a young kid who could make his ball team win every time if he just did the dirty work instead of going for personal stats and glory. I’d have to say Garchomp is nowhere near uber, regardless of what argument you bring up, it will always have holes, just as reasons why it shouldn’t be. Remember guys, it’s not like Garchomp is Exodia. If there was a Yu-Gi of Pokemon, he’d just bust out a new made up move the writers just wrote and win. You don’t automatically win if you have a Garchomp (same thing applies to all ubers but come on, work with me here).
Wobbuffet on the other hand however, that simply put is uber if only because it takes the control out of players completely. Although, one thing I’ve yet to seen is two teams that use Wobbuffet against each other. Who wins that? But as we move along, we can see that Wobbuffet should be banned not because it automatically kills something, or could potentially kill something, but it seems too much like a trump card. Wobbuffet is kind of like Crush Card, anything you have over 1500 in attack, dead. In this metaphor, 1500+ monsters would be stalling Pokemon, while all the offensive beast are the lesser attack ones (yes I realize the irony). Myself personally, my stall teams don’t mind Wobbuffet at all, but I’m not going to put that into any argument cause then we’d have wiseass say that I imply they’re not good to win and make me seem elitist (which I am) but I rather not go down that path, but at least you know you can still win!!!
Other thoughts on my mind however off subject they are. New users can easily question the intelligence and knowledge of older users, and you know why? Because if the new user gets put in their place, they’re forgotten. The older users, should they lose face, they’re here to stay, so they’ll be known forever as not having such authoritative opinions.
Even if you’re a dumbass now, doesn’t mean you have to be a dumbass later. You have no idea how many chances you have so stop being ignorant. If someone says something you disagree with, just let it go. I mean I once had a 40 reply each PM with Jumpman over an infraction. However fun you might think that goes, well actually that was fun but my inbox got purged during a banning…Anyhow…I guess that’s about it. You might think I’m pretty awesome. You might be to, but I doubt as much as me. Remember, they’re obviously my opinion, so you can’t tell me I’m wrong. =] I love being not wrong.
as i stated on the wobby discussion thread i think all the various discussion that spawned during the last two months have a common origin (the base of OU definition) so i think it will be worthwile to sum up all the discussion that have been made and get some resoult out of them...
for start a quick definition of centralization that has been pointed out during the overcentralizing topic
if this is not possible then let's just do a banlist with our preferencies based on multiple factor ...
i was thinking something like:
A pokemon/item will be banned if:
-shows a certain degree of overcentralization based on the definition
-promote luck over skill
- it doesn't promote skill
for reference:
Putting an end to the slippery slope
Overcentralizing
also the wobbufett discussion itself
for start a quick definition of centralization that has been pointed out during the overcentralizing topic
those various statement may be fused to get a decent definition of centralization then we can add X-Act proposal of definition
imo we should find a good definition to ban things in general then just look if the wobbufett or garchomp of the situation reflect or not the definition
if this is not possible then let's just do a banlist with our preferencies based on multiple factor ...
i was thinking something like:
A pokemon/item will be banned if:
-shows a certain degree of overcentralization based on the definition
-promote luck over skill
- it doesn't promote skill
for reference:
Putting an end to the slippery slope
Overcentralizing
also the wobbufett discussion itself
Just one thing: is there "a certain degree of overcentralization" that will be the least arbitrary and/or can be agreed upon?
As I've stated before, I like to use a 10% change in the number of OU Pokemon as this degree, but really, how do you get more arbitrary than that?
There should be a systematic way to determine the proper degree to use...
As I've stated before, I like to use a 10% change in the number of OU Pokemon as this degree, but really, how do you get more arbitrary than that?
There should be a systematic way to determine the proper degree to use...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9t4E7i6eRZs
If anything says a lot about the metagame today, it is this video. I agree with this person on basically everything. He mentions that in a quote that he is tired of seeing Vaporeon. Well to me it is the opposite. I would be happy to see a Vaporeon these days considering what this game has come to.
And I don't agree with this Deoxys and Wobbufet coming back. Deoxys just comes in and hits anybody hard. And Wobbufet just kills my choiced pokemon. Isn't enough that I'm stuck on one move?
If anything says a lot about the metagame today, it is this video. I agree with this person on basically everything. He mentions that in a quote that he is tired of seeing Vaporeon. Well to me it is the opposite. I would be happy to see a Vaporeon these days considering what this game has come to.
And I don't agree with this Deoxys and Wobbufet coming back. Deoxys just comes in and hits anybody hard. And Wobbufet just kills my choiced pokemon. Isn't enough that I'm stuck on one move?
Well I don't have much time so I'll come back to this later but I stopped listening to that video when he mentioned "how many times have you seen a pokemon and known what moves it has before it used them." That's a good chunk of all the availible pokemon for me. Any battler should know what options a pokemon can throw at you and what the common sets are. This is part of the higher mind game of pokemon. Sets are common for a reason.. they work the best or most efficiently. That's a fact everyone should accept and instead of complaining about it, they should use it to their advantage.
I'm going to bump this because people really should read the Opening Post and MoP's post at least