to wait a bit longer, I did also agree with it being suspected.Corporal Levi said:Anyways, if we assume floondig is broken (which we shouldn't yet, but pretend for a second that you're convinced it is), I don't think we should rule out banning Drifloon as opposed to Diglett.
Yeah guys seriously! Remember the last time we stopped suspect testing 8-9 months before a new generation came out? Man, that was a fantastic decision. That's totally not enough time to make it worth redoing all those pesky analyses for a metagame that will be filed away and never touched again, right?I would be willing to take another look at Diglett. I still don't think it's broken and with gen 7 around the corner I don't think it's necessarily with removing it and having a "new" metagame without Diglett. I also don't think there's been any "new" arguments to make besides the rise of Drifloon. That being said, I'd entertain the idea of revisiting it.
No offense to the people who put in the hard work (which was me for a time as well) with BW, but that was a fucking mess of a tier. I don't think we can draw too many parrallels between Murkrow and Diglett (if that's what you were referring).Yeah guys seriously! Remember the last time we stopped suspect testing 8-9 months before a new generation came out? Man, that was a fantastic decision. That's totally not enough time to make it worth redoing all those pesky analyses for a metagame that will be filed away and never touched again, right?
Yes yes, I know you didn't outright object to a test, but there's still a bit of salt left for me to shake out from before the gen 6 release.
To make this a non-shitpost, I'll throw my support behind a Diglett suspect. I believe that it should have left the tier the first time, and will be happy there's another chance for Diglett to leave.
lol what? I don't think there's any relevant player that wants to get rid of Diglett on the basis that the metagame is stale or repetitive. Look at SPL, so much random shit has been used effectively. This is probably the metagame with the most viable shit in it, it seems counterintuitive to call it repetitive. IDK about others but to me the very concept of Arena Trap and Shadow Tag is borked and should not be involved in a serious competitive environment. It limits one of two options that a player has in battle (either pick a move or switch) which is in itself inherently uncompetitive. Not only that it has zero counterplay aside from either 1.) running Shed Shell (which I've actually done because trapping is so fucking stupid), or 2.) straight up double switching and outplaying your opponent, which should definitely NOT be the safest option in an environment where risk v reward exists as a concept. You shouldn't have to just straight up coinflip on whether your opponent is going into Diglett or not, and best case scenario you regain a little momentum if they switch into something else. Yes, there a bit more nuances involved, and no, Wynaut / Magnet Pull Magnemite / Trapinch / Gothita aren't broken in the same way that Moody Smeargle isn't broken. But I highly doubt anyone thinks as I do and I'll get so much shit for even suggesting a trapping ban.Sun/Moon holds value here because a big reason a lot of people want to ban Diglett is that the metagame is apparently stale and/or repetitive, and getting rid of something as relevant and unique as Diglett would change this. If we're already guaranteed to have a significant metagame shift in the near future, then this line of thought completely loses its purpose. That leaves us with Diglett making the metagame unfun or Diglett being broken as reasons to get rid of Diglett, and considering how the ORAS meta is often considered the best LC has ever been, it's pretty safe to say that ending up where BW is now isn't really a concern. If we're considering whether to get rid of Diglett, it should purely be on the basis that it's broken or overcentralizing.
It seems like you're just trying to turn a blind eye bro. You can go all the way back to the Misdreavus suspect and see a common link in every single suspect bar the stupid Baton Pass one. Fletchling was suspected alongside Misdreavus for its ability to absolutely hammer anything and everything bar Archen, with Diglett trapping and eliminating every single one of its grounded counters. This was an actual argument in the test, and the outcome was that Fletchling itself was considered not broken and stayed. Fast forward a bit to the actual Diglett suspect test, which was also deemed fine. Now, ironically, we're on our third iteration of a suspect test that somehow involves Diglett. Does that not worry you? like why the fuck are there 3 different iterations of suspect tests where Diglett features as a factor? Drifloon by itself is in no way broken. What was its tier prior to the hype around it? B? B-? Somehow it went completely unnoticed for months on end and all of a sudden its completely bonkers. I don't buy that at all. Diglett is the enabler, its the common link, it already has an ability that's pretty controversial in higher tiers (just look at the Shadow Tag suspect in Ubers circa 2014 / 2015, that was banned then was reversed, the earlier Gengarite suspect test in Ubers which was largely in part to its ability of Shadow Tag, Shadow Tag being banned from UU, or the Shadow Tag ban in OU). I realize that all of my examples are all Shadow Tag, but imo all trapping abilities fit under the same scope (the only one who i can't really see being borked is Magnet Pull, simply because of the entire limiting nature of it and the shitty mons that use it. Nosepass frankly is mediocre unless on a specific team, magnemite with magnet pull frankly blows dicks and can only do one thing compared to how Scarf Mag or whatnot can just shaft teams long dick style).I also do not think we 'goofed' in the previous suspect test. There were respectable pro-ban arguments then that were enough to make the suspect controversial, of course, but if we do a retest it would be because of metagame shifts (floondig, vulladig) and more evidence (SPL) that strengthen these arguments, not because we simply messed up the first time.
I think this attitude is obnoxious, unhelpful, ignorant, and frankly, fucking ridiculous (not just you, and you may have meant nothing, so I mean no offense to you...). I'm with Levi here. There is no "goofing". This attitude is only possible if you completely misunderstand what the philosophy was for banning a Pokemon. We collectively decided that it was not broken. The arguments that it were failed miserably under any half-decent scrutiny and thus it was decided that we keep it in.and this is why i voted to ban dig last time.While i do think its kinda late in the game to be banning dig now, with the pending new metagame, lets ban dig so when we put ORAS LC as an lcpl meta we don't have to regret not doing anything about it.
For the record, Drifloon was not always used with Diglett and furthermore, it does not need to be used with Diglett to be effective. People didn't even think of that shit until it Drifloon was thrust into the spotlight. Fletchling also does not need Diglett to be effective, though I think the argument holds more weight in that context.lol what? I don't think there's any relevant player that wants to get rid of Diglett on the basis that the metagame is stale or repetitive. Look at SPL, so much random shit has been used effectively. This is probably the metagame with the most viable shit in it, it seems counterintuitive to call it repetitive. IDK about others but to me the very concept of Arena Trap and Shadow Tag is borked and should not be involved in a serious competitive environment. It limits one of two options that a player has in battle (either pick a move or switch) which is in itself inherently uncompetitive. Not only that it has zero counterplay aside from either 1.) running Shed Shell (which I've actually done because trapping is so fucking stupid), or 2.) straight up double switching and outplaying your opponent, which should definitely NOT be the safest option in an environment where risk v reward exists as a concept. You shouldn't have to just straight up coinflip on whether your opponent is going into Diglett or not, and best case scenario you regain a little momentum if they switch into something else. Yes, there a bit more nuances involved, and no, Wynaut / Magnet Pull Magnemite / Trapinch / Gothita aren't broken in the same way that Moody Smeargle isn't broken. But I highly doubt anyone thinks as I do and I'll get so much shit for even suggesting a trapping ban.
It seems like you're just trying to turn a blind eye bro. You can go all the way back to the Misdreavus suspect and see a common link in every single suspect bar the stupid Baton Pass one. Fletchling was suspected alongside Misdreavus for its ability to absolutely hammer anything and everything bar Archen, with Diglett trapping and eliminating every single one of its grounded counters. This was an actual argument in the test, and the outcome was that Fletchling itself was considered not broken and stayed. Fast forward a bit to the actual Diglett suspect test, which was also deemed fine. Now, ironically, we're on our third iteration of a suspect test that somehow involves Diglett. Does that not worry you? like why the fuck are there 3 different iterations of suspect tests where Diglett features as a factor? Drifloon by itself is in no way broken. What was its tier prior to the hype around it? B? B-? Somehow it went completely unnoticed for months on end and all of a sudden its completely bonkers. I don't buy that at all. Diglett is the enabler, its the common link, it already has an ability that's pretty controversial in higher tiers (just look at the Shadow Tag suspect in Ubers circa 2014 / 2015, that was banned then was reversed, the earlier Gengarite suspect test in Ubers which was largely in part to its ability of Shadow Tag, Shadow Tag being banned from UU, or the Shadow Tag ban in OU). I realize that all of my examples are all Shadow Tag, but imo all trapping abilities fit under the same scope (the only one who i can't really see being borked is Magnet Pull, simply because of the entire limiting nature of it and the shitty mons that use it. Nosepass frankly is mediocre unless on a specific team, magnemite with magnet pull frankly blows dicks and can only do one thing compared to how Scarf Mag or whatnot can just shaft teams long dick style).
Anyway those are my remarks
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, and I don't think anybody is saying that just because Diglett was suspected means it shouldn't be suspected again. On the other hand, the fact that it was not banned (which a significant number of people are saying was not a mistake) means that new arguments for why Diglett should be banned this time around should be weighed more heavily, since the old arguments, while maybe still valid, were already successfully fought against. So what's really changed?in response to the "We have suspected it in some way before and collectively deemed it not broken" argument I don't believe that is a sufficient enough argument to prove that Diglett in itself is not broken. The fact that we have already tested it and are now calling for a retest should point to how flawed of a mon it is. There aren't calls that Fletchling is somehow broken and that we should retest it, because it isn't and I don't think anyone seriously believes that. There aren't calls that Baton Pass is broken because most people just lol at the very idea. But Diglett is now being scrutinized (or is a choice in what to scrutinize I guess is the better wording) for the second time. I think that should raise some alarms, especially so since the actual votes were fairly close. 37 Ban, 49 Do Not Ban, with 8 abstaining (43% of the people who participated in the suspect voted for Diglett being banned, that might be the closest ban / do not ban in history of XY / ORAS). That's a far cry closer of a vote than what was expected of Gothita, a measly 8% ban vote lol.
I don't personally think it was a mistake to not ban diglett. I don't really think it in itself is a broken mon, i just think that trapping abilities are dumb by nature. Regardless, its prefectly acceptable to revisit a past Pokemon that was banned / not banned. I guess in BW that Scraggy being suspected, deemed not broken, and now calls for Scraggy in BW LC are ignorant? Or Meditite in round 1 of BW LC voting being deemed not broken, then being revisited three times before finally being banned. Or Murkrow in BW LC who was visited countless times, or Drilbur, or Scraggy again, or Misdreavus, or even Eviolite. So many pokemon have gone through that banning and unbanning phase as the metagame adapts. Granted the BW LC system was kinda flawed in that it required a supermajority to ban something, but I think the point still stands that it isn't really ignorant to try to revisit suspect tests. Calling them "mistakes" is dumb since metagames adapt, but we should definitely be open to revisiting Diglett and not just shoving it off with "we already banned this why are we doing this again".