I didn't think I would have posted a thread like this, but a large part of the community has been asking us to take measures against strategies that abuse the combination of Swagger+Prankster, usually in conjunction with Paralysis support and Foul Play, to make games entirely luck reliant. While a few months ago the strategy was rarely, if ever, seen on the ladder, it's starting to become a thing lately. So here we go.
The purpose of this thread is to gather opinions from the playerbase on how the above strategy is perceived. When the discussion is over, the OU Council will decide how to move forward. This means that, notwithstanding the current rules of this forum, you are allowed to discuss about potential bans to make the SwagPlay strategy less effective.
The options that are being considered right now are:
You're free to suggest more and different methods of approaching the issue.
Remember to make civil posts and to back up your arguments with solid reasonings. Uninformed, unnecessarily rude and off-topic posts will be deleted and infracted without further warnings.
Discuss.
Chou edit: Do NOT make arguments for Swagger-Prank based on it "adding diversity" to the meta-- and this being "better" or "healthier" for the metagame.
Previous data shows that "diversity" is not conclusively deemed better by not the community, nor is "over-centralization" deemed a problem.
All posts appealing to variety/diversity/creativity/etc. as their main argument will be deleted if I find them.
Thanks
Unofficial, but standard definition of "Uncompetitive":
The purpose of this thread is to gather opinions from the playerbase on how the above strategy is perceived. When the discussion is over, the OU Council will decide how to move forward. This means that, notwithstanding the current rules of this forum, you are allowed to discuss about potential bans to make the SwagPlay strategy less effective.
The options that are being considered right now are:
- ban the move Swagger;
- ban the move Swagger in conjunction with the ability Prankster (complex ban);
- ban individual Pokémon that make the strategy effective (Klefki, Liepard etc.).
You're free to suggest more and different methods of approaching the issue.
Remember to make civil posts and to back up your arguments with solid reasonings. Uninformed, unnecessarily rude and off-topic posts will be deleted and infracted without further warnings.
Discuss.
Chou edit: Do NOT make arguments for Swagger-Prank based on it "adding diversity" to the meta-- and this being "better" or "healthier" for the metagame.
Previous data shows that "diversity" is not conclusively deemed better by not the community, nor is "over-centralization" deemed a problem.
All posts appealing to variety/diversity/creativity/etc. as their main argument will be deleted if I find them.
Thanks
Unofficial, but standard definition of "Uncompetitive":
Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions-- and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive.
This can be luck-based, but doesn't have to be (see: 4th gen Wobb, who was effective enough then to remove the ability to "do anything about it" largely from the enemy player, and was banned for uncompetitive-ness); but most uncompetitive strategies that are banned usually have a high appeal to luck.
While there is always luck involved in Pokemon, the problem is the degree to which control is taken away from the player. Removal of autonomy is the key to an uncompetitive tiering decision or clause.
Note: the word "degree" as there are many game aspects that remove autonomy, but the problem is degree of removal (Moody / Double Team remove more autonomy than Quick Claw or fast U-Turn/Volt Switch).
Whether the "degree" of autonomy removal is uncompetitive is debatable, and is subjective (based off of player experience).
Note: Individual Pokemon can be banned for a combination of "overpowered" and "uncompetitive" characteristics-- see 4th Gen Deoxys-S and 4th Gen Shaymin-S bans
Last edited by a moderator: