I know that, you don't have to go at me like that. I think its common knowledge that drizzle-swift swim-Luvdisc is banned, so I can just say Luvdisc. And you prefer me to say that then whatever, I just think its a waste of time.
-
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.
Aldaron's proposal: Alternatives?
- Thread starter Thorhammer
- Start date
I know that, you don't have to go at me like that. I think its common knowledge that drizzle-swift swim-Luvdisc is banned, so I can just say Luvdisc. And you prefer me to say that then whatever, I just think its a waste of time.
This statement here is why I think people were so against banning individual Pokemon as we have for generations previous, and instead chose to ban heavy-handedly on the abilities.
What about Kingdra says he isn't broken? That's a fine distinction to make too, as "belong in uber" implies that we care about what the banlist we have looks like. To be perfectly blunt, if a Pokemon's broken, it belongs in Uber. Just because he's not featured by GameFreak as a premier power, that doesn't mean he's not broken. It's as if we psychologically don't want to break away from the idea that we've only been banning legendaries, or pseudo-legendaries.
In all honesty we need to erase that concept out of our heads, and replace it with "Ban what's broken," not "Ban what looks like it's broken, then pussy-foot around the things that look like they shouldn't."
Yes, that problem being a few Pokemon were broken as all hell. Being broken is NOT a quality all of the Swift Swim users possess therefore we should not treat Swift Swim as the one and only culprit of a few's brokenness. The problem with these broken Pokemon is an amalgam of various aspects, not just one part that is universally broken.
Would the Meta-Game be different had we banned Swift Swim in comparison to Aldaron's Proposal? No, it would not. In that sense you're right. However, that's partially why Aldaron's Proposal was a failure and a disservice to Pokemon, because it was built upon a faulty premise, just as much as a Swift Swim ban is.
I will continue to pussy foot around as much as I wish, fudamentally I feel banning Kingdra is wrong, and you if can keep it not banned then I am all for that. Now if Kingdra was still broken without drizzle then I feel go ahead ban that to uber.
Some people may bring up a slipery slope kind of arguement to go argainst this, but I don't want that at all. Just banning it with drizzle is fine, if it was still banned with swift swim then ban that, I wou'dn't go any further though, its not like I want o bring down Mewtwo to level 85, and make it OU. Thats absurd, you can ban things apporaitely to make the metagame enjoyable, without going crazy.
I personally believe Swift Swim/Chlorophyll/Sand Rush should be going, at least with their respective weather inducer. If you can't use a non-weather team without being at a disadvantage im not happy with the metagame- Hail inducers like Blissey and bulky waters can't just come in on Chlorosaur, Sawsbuck, Ludicolo etc. forever, being forced to leave your team open to attack for a turn while the weather inducer can just pop right in and out. A weather war metagame centered around 5 pokemon is not pleasing either.
My personal want is a metagame that isn't centered around weather and doesn't leave you outclassed by teams with one of a certain 5 pokemon. Banning speed doubling abilities +auto weather as a whole seems like the most effective fix. This makes it so several pokemon have roughly base 200 speed unless you don't use a select weather stopper(s).
My personal want is a metagame that isn't centered around weather and doesn't leave you outclassed by teams with one of a certain 5 pokemon. Banning speed doubling abilities +auto weather as a whole seems like the most effective fix. This makes it so several pokemon have roughly base 200 speed unless you don't use a select weather stopper(s).
I disagree. I have no problem with Aldarons proposal other than the fact that its a complex ban. As far as its desired effect, I say it's done its job.
I'm not trying to attack you, I'd just prefer if people clarify with what there posting because as of thus far people seem to have it in there minds that Pokemon who have Swift Swim as an ability don't have an alternative ability to retreat to should Swift Swim be axed, when in fact all of them do.
It's important people keep this in mind when voting and discussing the topic.
Drizzle is just a type of support. Without SR support I'm sure many things last gen would not have been broken either.
The problem with that line of thinking, however, lies within the fact that it IS a Slippery Slope. Not for the stupid reasons of bringing Ubers down to OU, no that's just hyperbole. It's a slippery slope because it betrays what arbitrary rules we set for ourselves. If we don't abide by our rules of banning Pokemon as a whole, then our community drifts and divides into chaos. What's scary is how ridiculously apparent that is just by looking at the results of the poll above. If we think this way, we insert far too much opinion into a process that's supposed to completely lack opinion. We're not supposed to figure out why "x" is broken so we can ban that feature, but figure out whether or not "x" is broken at all. And if it is, we ban it, else we do nothing.
Just as much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did it's job of stopping Japan's offensive in the Pacific Islands. Clearly it wasn't too much.
Obviously exaggeration, but you can see the point of how thinking, "Oh well it did it's intended job," is a flawed way to view how we do things here. We want to be like surgeons, doing everything as simply and as efficiently as possible. We don't want to be swinging a giant balance bat at the meta-game every time a new threat pops up. It's a little more delicate then that.
Thanks! The idea is that the abilities are broken alongside weather, so the ability itself is banned- like Shadow Tag on Wyanut last generation. The stat doubling effect should go rather than the non-broken practically counterable/beatable things- like Tornadus and Gyarados. This may extend to banning Sand Force too under the theory of auto-support but I don't think that effect is drastic enough to be banned alongside Sand Storm.
I actually did not know that. But, yes for future clarification I shall adress it properly.
Is DSS-(pokemon name) good enough?
Controversy and debate, however, is not actually a process within suspect testing. As long as there is sufficient actual testing, we can decide whether to ban or not ban. And I assure you that even with 3-4 suspects at a time, voters will have far more experience regarding them then they ever did with, let's say, Brightpowder.
If anything does go wrong, like the voters don't feel like they have enough experience, then we'll just end up with a few <66% vote for bans, and those pokemon will get pulled through/renominated for the next round.
Also, if the suspect testing system can get "clogged up", we'd be much better off trying to fix up the system (if such a flaw existed) than to come up with our own untested methods that essentially circumnavigate the suspect testing system.
That is, even if the system can't handle something well, it's just as bad to create a make-shift replacement system that sacrifices accuracy in favor of time.
I would really prefer to keep Drizzle around if at all possible, and banning all auto-weather I find out of the question. I was actually looking into creating a rain-stall team which would really need drizzle, and it would be nice if we could keep it around. If anything needs to be banned, then ban the major broken swift swim sweepers like Kingdra and Ludicolo.
While I find myself preferring to ban Swift Swim at the moment due to wanting to just get this entire political mess over with, and prevent people from premptively banning Pokemon they really shouldn't be banning, this is pretty much 100% correct.
I think it's important to not exclude weather teams from coming in as a disadvantage - Sun cannot use Water attacks well (water mon's effective use is somewhat resricted due to this) and vice versa for Rain. SS has to cope with residual damage to all non Ground, Rock or Steel types. A side effect of their beneficial impacts is having multiple shared typings - which can prove incredibly problematic. Mamoswine can give Chlorophyll sweepers hell with Ice Shard and threaten Fire-types with Ground and Rock moves, for instance. Yes they can get around this, but any good team packs counters to its counters.
Each weather can be countered, and if you have real trouble with one or more on the same team, I'd strongly advise using weather of your own in move or inducer form. Losing control of the weather utterly destroys these benefits, and in the case of Sun/Rain even hinders them severely. Pick the weather your team can cope with best (or fits best) and pack that weather to help screw over the others if they give you trouble. This may force many non-weather teams to run a weather move at the least, but if it works then you are no longer outclassed by a weather team in the manner you describe.
Personally I see this development of weather in the meta as a fact in gen 5, and one that people still haven't been able to adapt to as best possible. Weather moves for example are incredibly under-utilised and often disregarded as an option to help against weather, or just not thought of in teambuilding, understandably. I truly think weather has a great place in this meta (and from the poll a vast majority don't want even Drizzle banned entirely), but since the meta is still in flux, I think attempts to ban it would prove disastrous.
The problem with running a weather move to deal with weather inducers is that you have to waste a turn and open your team up to a big hit in the process, which you can't afford to do when the weather inducer just switches in and out to reset the weather. Another problem- there aren't any pokemon who can stare down all of the weather sweepers and safely disrupt the weather.
Therefore we should get rid of the broken aspect of weather- as shown by Aldaron's proposal having pokemon with doubled base speed at next to no cost is too much support, and should be treated the same with all weathers. It forces the metagame to center around a mere 5 pokemon, which would otherwise be really cool to give a balanced boost to things like Dragonite and Tyranitar. Running Hail on a bulky water or Blissey still leaves you screwed by current Sun teams. They outspeed the premium Choice Scarfers and break up too many walls clean.
Therefore we should get rid of the broken aspect of weather- as shown by Aldaron's proposal having pokemon with doubled base speed at next to no cost is too much support, and should be treated the same with all weathers. It forces the metagame to center around a mere 5 pokemon, which would otherwise be really cool to give a balanced boost to things like Dragonite and Tyranitar. Running Hail on a bulky water or Blissey still leaves you screwed by current Sun teams. They outspeed the premium Choice Scarfers and break up too many walls clean.
Alright, I have a question for everyone.
How would you all feel about having two separate variants of OU; one with Sandstream, Hail, Drought, and Drizzle banned from play, and the other with said abilities unrestricted?
Pokemon Online runs with a similar system. They have your standard WiFi tier, and another tier called Clear Skies, and it seems to work out quite well for them. From what I gather by the usage statistics, Clear Skies kinda looks like Gen IV with newly added Pokemon, while of course the standard WiFi tier shares a trend with having similar Pokemon (i.e. those that do well in sand) seeing higher ratings.
Here are the links.
Clear Skies: http://91.121.73.228/Clear Skies/index.html
WiFi: http://91.121.73.228/Wifi/index.html
I think its safe to assume that if we wind up banning Drizzle, Drought will likely follow suit, and Sandstream may or may not be far behind. When you look at it from that perspective, those who are voicing their opinions to have Drizzle banned, and those who just want all permanent auto weather gone entirely, are sort of in the same boat.
While it isn't completely relevant to the topic we've been discussing regarding Swift Swim + Drizzle, and how to handle the current proposal, it is something I wanted to address in regards to those people.
Thoughts?
How would you all feel about having two separate variants of OU; one with Sandstream, Hail, Drought, and Drizzle banned from play, and the other with said abilities unrestricted?
Pokemon Online runs with a similar system. They have your standard WiFi tier, and another tier called Clear Skies, and it seems to work out quite well for them. From what I gather by the usage statistics, Clear Skies kinda looks like Gen IV with newly added Pokemon, while of course the standard WiFi tier shares a trend with having similar Pokemon (i.e. those that do well in sand) seeing higher ratings.
Here are the links.
Clear Skies: http://91.121.73.228/Clear Skies/index.html
WiFi: http://91.121.73.228/Wifi/index.html
I think its safe to assume that if we wind up banning Drizzle, Drought will likely follow suit, and Sandstream may or may not be far behind. When you look at it from that perspective, those who are voicing their opinions to have Drizzle banned, and those who just want all permanent auto weather gone entirely, are sort of in the same boat.
While it isn't completely relevant to the topic we've been discussing regarding Swift Swim + Drizzle, and how to handle the current proposal, it is something I wanted to address in regards to those people.
Thoughts?
Not that my input matters, but this is my favourite outlook on it right now. I also voted to ban permanent weather, but would prefer a different tiering for it.
IMO, there should only be one OU, by that I mean one banlist.
I think weather will be fine if Chlorophyll and Sand Rush are banned along their weathers because those sweepers can outspeed and mow down a significant portion of any team that isn't stall based with little effort. Without the speed boost their offenses are roughly on par with what standard teams have and both can overpower the other, instead of Sun having a massive advantage over no weather. This relates to Aldaron's proposal because it's a widespread version of it that balances out weather-based and non weather-based playstyles.
If weather isn't broken there isn't a need to seperate it and we can have our lone official OU tier. Perhaps we could make a seperate non-weather game and see how it goes, but I would really prefer to have a single OU metagame.
Before I make up my mind about the best solution,I have a question.Mainly towards Thorhammer but anyone can chime in.
What exactly is the cutoff number for these SwSw+Drizzle tests before its determined if the current proposal is better or worse?I'm just curious how far it can be taken.In your post Thorhammer, you mentioned it doesn't matter if 6 or even 7 swimmers are deemed broken.Is it really worth it to lose that many pokemon?
I don't like the idea of having parts taken away from a Pokemon just to allow it to stay in competetive play.I believe a Pokemon should be treated as a complete package and judged by the overall picture rather than tearing it apart to achieve a preconcieved goal.That is why I don't like the idea of a ban like Kingdra+SwSw+Drizzle or Gorebyss+SwSw+Drizzle while allowing Seaking+SwSw+Drizzle to be legal.Either the whole Pokemon is Uber or its not.
On the other hand,I'm also against restrictions and bans that hurt a strategy unnecessarily.I advocate that with Stealth Rock and I advocate that here.If someone wants to run Drizzle with Seaking,Lumineon, and Luvdisc on a team,go for it.If they can be balanced in the metagame, they should be allowed.
I guess my biggest concern is how far are people willing to go to let Drizzle stay in OU.Right now,I haven't made up my mind one way or another in terms of being broken, but if keeping it in OU means banning upwards of 7 swift swimmers plus any other rain abusers people have problems with (I have heard complaints about Thunderus/Tornadus) then is it to much cost for to little reward?The current state allows Rain to be used (abused?) with the other weathers.If you give rain even say 2 balanced swift swimmers, could it push it over the edge?
I almost want to say test.If to many swift swimmers are broke,put Alderon's Proposal back in place.If rain is broke without swift swimmers, then get rid of Drizzle.If 10+ Pokemon are broke by a single contributing factor, that factor should be eliminated.That's how I feel anyways.I would love to see as many of these guys allowed as possible but what is the feeling towards the number of expendable Pokemon here?
What exactly is the cutoff number for these SwSw+Drizzle tests before its determined if the current proposal is better or worse?I'm just curious how far it can be taken.In your post Thorhammer, you mentioned it doesn't matter if 6 or even 7 swimmers are deemed broken.Is it really worth it to lose that many pokemon?
I don't like the idea of having parts taken away from a Pokemon just to allow it to stay in competetive play.I believe a Pokemon should be treated as a complete package and judged by the overall picture rather than tearing it apart to achieve a preconcieved goal.That is why I don't like the idea of a ban like Kingdra+SwSw+Drizzle or Gorebyss+SwSw+Drizzle while allowing Seaking+SwSw+Drizzle to be legal.Either the whole Pokemon is Uber or its not.
On the other hand,I'm also against restrictions and bans that hurt a strategy unnecessarily.I advocate that with Stealth Rock and I advocate that here.If someone wants to run Drizzle with Seaking,Lumineon, and Luvdisc on a team,go for it.If they can be balanced in the metagame, they should be allowed.
I guess my biggest concern is how far are people willing to go to let Drizzle stay in OU.Right now,I haven't made up my mind one way or another in terms of being broken, but if keeping it in OU means banning upwards of 7 swift swimmers plus any other rain abusers people have problems with (I have heard complaints about Thunderus/Tornadus) then is it to much cost for to little reward?The current state allows Rain to be used (abused?) with the other weathers.If you give rain even say 2 balanced swift swimmers, could it push it over the edge?
I almost want to say test.If to many swift swimmers are broke,put Alderon's Proposal back in place.If rain is broke without swift swimmers, then get rid of Drizzle.If 10+ Pokemon are broke by a single contributing factor, that factor should be eliminated.That's how I feel anyways.I would love to see as many of these guys allowed as possible but what is the feeling towards the number of expendable Pokemon here?
There is no fixable problem with the system. If what you said is true, we should have had every suspect we have banned so far done away with in Round 1 of voting. However, not a single Swift Swimmer was even put up for voting Round 1, because everyone was too busy worrying about Skymin/Darkrai/Deoxys-A. Likewise, if we spend a round worrying about, say, Qwilfish, and Gorebyss, we won't even have the next batch of Swift Swimmers up for another round.
If we go with Drizzle, who's to say 70% of the suspect voters will feel comfortable getting preemptive on the other weathers? And once we find out it's too much to handle next round, who will get preemptive on the threats that weather keeps in check? Making preemptive bans based off pure theorymon is not only something that should be avoided at all costs, but is also a sign that we are indeed becoming "banhappy."
The choice is this, ban drizzle and fall further down the rabbit hole, or keep it and stay where we are now. Of course debates will still rage about whats ok to ban is sand rush broken, was about chlorophyll, ect, but its a lot less of a mess then what you will deal with by banning drizzle. People that want to ban it for simplicty reasons, need to look at the bigger picture. And only 18% of us think that weather should be banned all together, while a good quarter voted on something that will end of leading to exactly that, no weather.
Isn't saying Drizzle being banned will mean the other weathers will be too the same as saying all weathers are overpowered and we should ban all of them?
The first is a prediction/statement while the other is an opinion/proposal. I would say they're different.
Where we are now is with a complex ban. That needs to be rectified.
There would be an argument with Drizzle. The reason because SwSw became so good is because of instant rain in the form of drizzle. SwSw has always been good, look at UU in the middle of last gen, rain dominated, why because it's good. I think the problem lies within Drizzle, just ban it and get it over with. People may argue the SwSwers are to blame but without Drizzle, they wouldn't be balanced. Ban 1 thing that causes the problems instead of 3 that dominate because of the initial problem. If people start saying "ban all other instant weather" that's why we have more rounds of testing. We can address them when they come up, the problem is rooted in Drizzle, ban it!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
