Aldaron's proposal: Alternatives?

[Dragon Rider]

@ Thorhammer
Thanks for responding.So the cutoff would be if more than 50% were broken.OK.That sounds reasonable.

If the Swift Swim users push rain over the edge, then they aren't balanced.

There is no evidence that 10+ Pokemon will be made broken by Drizzle. The most that seems plausible right now is 7 or 8, as an absolute maximum. More likely, it will be around 5 Pokemon, all of which are broken not simply because of Drizzle, but because of their own characteristics which are brought out by Drizzle.

I do kinda disagree with this however.Swift Swim by itself is not broken.Swift Swim in combination with Rain Dance, is not broken.Only when combined with Drizzle does it become broken (even though that applies more to a select few than everything).However, permanent Rain has so many abusers that it is quite possible that in the future some could be considered broken.If for example, testing showed 5 broken swift swimmers (not hard to imagine since 3 are already there) and then say 3 other Pokemon are broke because of the rain (ie Thundurus/Tornadus spamming Thunder/Hurricane) what would that say about Drizzle?

I'm going to use an outside example.I play the YuGiOh trading card game.That game has a Forbidden/Restricted list to keep the game in check.On this list, there are several cards that are Forbidden because they are just way overpowered by themselves.A good example would be the Envoys.These could be like Mewtwo or Arceus in this game.

Then there is a second group that is Forbidden due to the interaction with other cards.These cards might not have been broken by themselves but they led to so many broken combos that eventually they were axed from competetive play.I'm going to use Mass Driver as the example here since its the most recent.On its own, it wasn't good at all.Matter of fact, it was complete garbage.However, certain loop combos allowed it to defeat an opponent in one turn without much resistance.Now over the years, several loop combos were banned and Mass Driver was never touched.Finally it was realized that although Mass Driver itself wasn't broken, it had broken at least a half dozen strategies in the past and it had resurfaced again with the Frog Loop.It is now Forbidden from play.

I guess I'm comparing Mass Driver to Drizzle.If that one factor (Drizzle) breaks many otherwise balanced Pokemon, which is the real culprit?Did the half dozen or more broken Pokemon break Drizzle, or did Drizzle break them?I say if it is just a couple who become truly broken (The Trio) then it is the Pokemon's fault and it deserves the boot.If a bunch of bans are needed to keep it OU however,I think Drizzle should be the one to go.

 

[Sajak]

Did the half dozen or more broken Pokemon break Drizzle, or did Drizzle break them?I say if it is just a couple who become truly broken (The Trio) then it is the Pokemon's fault and it deserves the boot.If a bunch of bans are needed to keep it OU however,I think Drizzle should be the one to go.

The Pokemon break Drizzle. Drizzle doesn't necessarily increase your chances of winning, it's only when you have a select handful of Pokemon with Drizzle when there's a problem. This means that it is the Pokemon that are broken, and not Drizzle, as Drizzle can be abused by a large number of Pokemon (442 Pokemon are at least Water type, Weak to Fire, or learn Thunder or Hurricane; notice this doesn't even include Pokemon that learn Water attacks as well), but only a few of them are broken. This shows me that Drizzle is not broken.

 

[Silver Random]

No, Latias was allowed in OU because of the Soul Dew clause that was in place at the time which prevented it (or any other pokemon) from using the item Soul Dew. It was not a Lati@s+Souldew ban as any other pokemon could also use the item. However if we want Blaziken back into OU, we would have to either ban Speed Boost entirely as an ability or ban Blaziken+Speed Boost. Which would then make the pokemon Uber and OU at the same time. The Latias arguement does not hold true because it was not a specific Latias+Soul Dew ban. This on the other hand will be a specific Blaziken+Speed Boost ban. So, unless you want to propose a Dream world clause or a Speed Boost clause, the arguement stands that there will be 2 Blaziken. One with Speed Boost in Ubers and one with Blaze in UU. Which i cannot find to be acceptable.

I see, that is a good point. But although it was technically just a ban on Soul Dew as a whole, it equates to being a ban on Latios / Latias + Soul Dew since Soul Dew is equivalent to no item on any other Pokemon. I concede it is different from Speed Boost in that you could just ban it entirely since no other Pokemon used it. But in reality it does come down to "Latias using this item is banned, but Latias without it isn't". It isn't as good an example as I thought of a Pokemon being banned in one form and not another, on paper at least, but that's what it was.

You say that you would ban my special "event" salamence moveset and yet you would not have banned the obviously broken moveset that already existed. That to me makes absolutely no sense.

That is not what I said, actually. What I mean is that if Salamence was deemed to be broken with Dragon Dance (or with a combination of any of its movesets) then I would just ban the entire Pokemon and not suggest allowing it to be used if crippled (unable to use good moves, or even something ridiculous like not level 100). But, if they released some event Salamence with some amazing move (or even ability), and it was only broken when using this specal event version, then I would consider banning only that special event version. Other people might have some huge problem with that but to me if an event version only broke a Pokemon I don't see why the non-event version would have to be banned.

And it creates huge slippery slope arguement. So why cant i then just remove moves and abilities from Uber pokemon and levels and EV's, IV's, the very basic Stats even, what's stoppind me from then altering the entire pokemon and stripping it of all it's bare fundamentals simply to make it allowed in OU? Tell me, would you like to have a metagame where there are multiple forms of every pokemon? What i mean is that would you like to have a Rayquaza allowed in NU but only if it is level 50 and cannot use half it's moveset and a Rayquaza in UU that s lvl 75 and has movepool restrictions and then the one in OU with some restrictions and then a final one in Ubers. Would you really want these mutated creatures. These imperfct beings running amock in the very tiers they were meant to be removed from in the first place? To me it seems like absolute nonsense. I may be exaggerating but that's what it is.

I don't believe people would start trying to let Ubers be used at a lower level, with poorer IVs or no EVs. Even if, for example, people decided to ban a Pokemon's Dream World ability but not without it. Only if you believe that absolutely everyone involved with this thing is incredibly stupid would you end up with a situation like above. All Pokemon are level 100, people can just choose their IVs and can invest their EVs any way they want. No one is going to successfully argue to change that.

Maybe it's just aversion to change, maybe it's because I'm more of a casual player on simulators, but I just don't see what is so absolutely monstrous about even thinking of banning a Dream World ability without banning the entire Pokemon. There's a much clearer line between a Dream World ability Pokemon and a non Dream World ability Pokemon than there is between anything else, whether it's a Pokemon with different movesets, nature, EV spread or even one of its two regular abilities. And to me it's enough of a distinction to consider banning only the Dream World ability, if it was that that was broken.

I'm not even saying that Drizzle is necessarily what needs to be banned. But if we can ban Swift Swim and Drizzle on the same team, then why (if it was decided getting rid of Drizzle was the best option) couldn't we ban just Drizzle Politoed? Is ithat really the same as banning Mewtwo entirely rather than only banning Mewtwo above level 80 that have moves with base power 60 or higher (or whatever ridiculous scenario you can come up with), or is it a much cleaner, simpler, more natural ban that makes a lot more sense? What benefit is there of banning non Dream World Politoed? Would it really lead to a game full of level 50 Rayquazas if we didn't?

Maybe banning a Dream World version of a Pokemon only isn't always going to be the best idea, but I just don't think the idea should be competely dismissed "just because", as though it is an utterly unthinkable idea.

 

[Sajak]

There's a much clearer line between a Dream World ability Pokemon and a non Dream World ability Pokemon

No there isn't.

 

[Silver Random]

Yes there is.

...

Wow, this is clearly going to be productive.

There's a much clearer line between a Pokemon that's got something from the Dream World and one that doesn't, than (that first part doesn't actually make sense on it's own by the way) there is between a Pokemon with two different EV spreads or natures, or different choices of moves or abilities. That much is obvious from the fact we can talk about whether the Dream World version is released yet, but you won't hear anyone saying "You can't use 252 Att / 252 Spe Jolly Garchomp yet, it's not released!"

That distinction might not be enough for someone to think banning the DW ability rather than the whole Pokemon is right, they might think it doesn't really matter, but it is there...

 

[Sajak]

Yes there is.

...

Wow, this is clearly going to be productive.

There's a much clearer line between a Pokemon that's got something from the Dream World and one that doesn't, than (that first part doesn't actually make sense on it's own by the way) there is between a Pokemon with two different EV spreads or natures, or different choices of moves or abilities. That much is obvious from the fact we can talk about whether the Dream World version is released yet, but you won't hear anyone saying "You can't use 252 Att / 252 Spe Jolly Garchomp yet, it's not released!"

That distinction might not be enough for someone to think banning the DW ability rather than the whole Pokemon is right, they might think it doesn't really matter, but it is there...

Pokemon are viewed as a whole, including all of their available moves, natures, EVs, and yes even abilities. If a Pokemon gets a move that makes it broken, the Pokemon is banned. If the Pokemon gets a new ability that makes it broken, the Pokemon is banned.

Move tutors are exactly like that Dream World in this respect. They give Pokemon more options than what they normally have, and if their new options make them broken, guess what? They're broken. You can't just say that you can't use that tutor for Pokemon X when Pokemon X becomes broken, but using the tutor for Pokemon Y is fine if Pokemon Y isn't broken by the tutor.

So, again, no, there isn't.

 

[Arc Tech]

Yes there is.

...

Wow, this is clearly going to be productive.

There's a much clearer line between a Pokemon that's got something from the Dream World and one that doesn't, than (that first part doesn't actually make sense on it's own by the way) there is between a Pokemon with two different EV spreads or natures, or different choices of moves or abilities. That much is obvious from the fact we can talk about whether the Dream World version is released yet, but you won't hear anyone saying "You can't use 252 Att / 252 Spe Jolly Garchomp yet, it's not released!"

That distinction might not be enough for someone to think banning the DW ability rather than the whole Pokemon is right, they might think it doesn't really matter, but it is there...

Our foreknowledge of the possible existence of DW pokemon before they are released doesn't make them any more distinct. If we had known bullet punch scizor was going to exist before platinum was released, it would have been in the same boat. Would that make it any more distinct from normal scizor, let alone possibly considered a different form which could be banned independent of non-BP scizor?

There is no fundamental difference from DW abilities than "normally obtained" abilities. If a pokemon has, it has it. End of story.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Yeah I have to agree with them there, a DW world abiltiy is not any diferent from a normal ability.

Now tell me, what is basically wrong with banning an ability on a certain pokemon, and not banning the pokemon itself, while making a system in place that would prevent absurd slippery slopes? If you just ban them, but not tier them, seperatly, I don't see the problem.

 

[Sajak]

Yeah I have to agree with them there, a DW world abiltiy is not any diferent from a normal ability.

Now tell me, what is basically wrong with banning an ability on a certain pokemon, and not banning the pokemon itself, while making a system in place that would prevent absurd slippery slopes? If you just ban them, but not tier them, seperatly, I don't see the problem.

Because banning something like a Pokemon + Ability combination does lead to a slippery slope.

Besides that, banning just the combination does tier the Pokemon separately. You have one version of the Pokemon in Ubers tier, and one version somewhere below that. That is the same Pokemon in two tiers unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

 

[Arc Tech]

Banning speed boost blaziken and allowing blaze blaziken is basically tiering them separately.

The thing is, speed boost is not the reason Blaziken is broken. The reasons Blaziken is broken are Speed Boost, Hi Jump Kick, Flare Blitz, Blaze Kick, Swords Dance, Protect, Shadow Claw, Stone Edge, Fire Blast, Hidden Power, Life Orb, 120 base attack, 110 base sp atk, 80 base speed, fire/fighting typing...

Now what is the thing that links all of these together? The species. Therefore the species is banned, not anything else.

The only time one factor would be banned if it was broken/uncompetitive in and of itself, such as moody. And then it would be a blanket ban, not a ban on having it with just one pokemon (unless only one poke got it, of course).

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Because banning something like a Pokemon + Ability combination does lead to a slippery slope.

Besides that, banning just the combination does tier the Pokemon separately. You have one version of the Pokemon in Ubers tier, and one version somewhere below that. That is the same Pokemon in two tiers unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Its exactly that though, Ubers is tycnically a banlist, not a tier. If this where to be done in UU with BL, what would be the diference? Let me answe that for you, nothing. The only diference here is some people perfer to play around in Uber.

So there aren't 2 diferent versions, you have the legal one, and the banned one, the banned one isn't allowed, so there is basically one. People have to stop looking at it like we want to tier them, no we want to ban the abilties. Its a vast diference. And if you limit it to only banning them, you might slip a bit, but soon you will find your footing and climb back up the hill.

 

[Thorhammer]

Worth noting that bans can be carried out without tier changes, by means of clauses.

 

[XienZo]

So there aren't 2 diferent versions, you have the legal one, and the banned one, the banned one isn't allowed, so there is basically one. People have to stop looking at it like we want to tier them, no we want to ban the abilties. Its a vast diference. And if you limit it to only banning them, you might slip a bit, but soon you will find your footing and climb back up the hill.

So why can't we have a Legal Ho-oh, which can only run special attacks, and non-legal ho-oh, which is allowed to go physical?

They, as you said, wouldn't even be different versions; just the legal Ho-oh and the illegal Ho-oh.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

So why can't we have a Legal Ho-oh, which can only run special attacks, and non-legal ho-oh, which is allowed to go physical?

They, as you said, wouldn't even be different versions; just the legal Ho-oh and the illegal Ho-oh.

*sigh* I keep on going over the same points, but they are shattered in diferent threads.

A pokemon's tiering is desided by its best package of moves, abilities stats, ect. Now Ho-oh, unless you do some serious screwing with, it will stay broken and banned. But Blaziken is diferent, you just take away one simple thing, its ability, and it slides way down, possibly to UU. While Ho-oh, will still be useable in Uber infact it will be used in 2 "tiers," if you want to call Uber a tier.

There is a big diference between taken something just broken, and handicapping it to make it able to use, and something that is majorly broken, messing it up everywhere, and then having it be in a lower tier.

Also, if you wan to keep a sort of rule for this whole process, so it doesn't slide down the hill into a lake, keep the pokemon useable in one tier, no more, and no less.

Unless its totally broken in its normal tier, but not useable in the banlist for higher, a classic example is in last gen with Deoxys-Normal in Uber and Shaymin in BL (or theorically every pokemon in Uber). You can't make a little snip to them, to make them drop down. Unless of course if you wish to ban moves, but thats a messy order that no one wants to deal with, while you can simply snip an ability, and its down. Pokemon have only 1-3 abilities, some very special to the pokemon, while moves are in a order of dozens, sometimes even hundreds.

 

[XienZo]

*sigh* I keep on going over the same points, but they are shattered in diferent threads.

A pokemon's tiering is desided by its best package of moves, abilities stats, ect. Now Ho-oh, unless you do some serious screwing with, it will stay broken and banned. But Blaziken is diferent, you just take away one simple thing, its ability, and it slides way down, possibly to UU. While Ho-oh, will still be useable in Uber infact it will be used in 2 "tiers," if you want to call Uber a tier.

There is a big diference between taken something just broken, and handicapping it to make it able to use, and something that is majorly broken, messing it up everywhere, and then having it be in a lower tier.

Ho-Oh is only broken because of its Attack stat, so as long we make sure it doesn't use it, we're totally fine. If anything, a single stat isn't nearly as big as an entire ability, since you can easily make a pokemon work on just 2 out of the 6 stats, so you've got 4 stats' worth of margin of error.

Also, Ubers is technically a banlist, not a tier. For example, if Blaziken was usable in BL and UU, we wouldn't count BL, since it's just a banlist.

Also, if you wan to keep a sort of rule for this whole process, so it doesn't slide down the hill into a lake, keep the pokemon useable in one tier, no more, and no less.

Unless its totally broken in its normal tier, but not useable in the banlist for higher, a classic example is in last gen with Deoxys-Normal in Uber and Shaymin in BL (or theorically every pokemon in Uber). You can't make a little snip to them, to make them drop down. Unless of course if you wish to ban moves, but thats a messy order that no one wants to deal with, while you can simply snip an ability, and its down. Pokemon have only 1-3 abilities, some very special to the pokemon, while moves are in a order of dozens, sometimes even hundreds.

It's very easy to simply snip off all physical moves from Ho-oh, I guarantee you that. Very easy indeed.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

We aren't debating banning moves, just abilties, so lets stick with abilities. And again, banning half of a pokemon's movepool is nowhere in comparison to banning an ability on a pokemon.

 

[Sajak]

Its exactly that though, Ubers is tycnically a banlist, not a tier. If this where to be done in UU with BL, what would be the diference? Let me answe that for you, nothing. The only diference here is some people perfer to play around in Uber.

So there aren't 2 diferent versions, you have the legal one, and the banned one, the banned one isn't allowed, so there is basically one. People have to stop looking at it like we want to tier them, no we want to ban the abilties. Its a vast diference. And if you limit it to only banning them, you might slip a bit, but soon you will find your footing and climb back up the hill.

If you have a legal one, and one in Ubers you do have two versions. Ubers is a tier as much as it is a ban list. It's the same thing if we had one Pokemon in both UU and BL. It's two versions of a Pokemon in two different tiers. Unless it were to be added in as a Clause (such as the Evasion Clause) where it is never allowed at all, banning a Pokemon + Ability combo will always lead to two versions, and making a Clause for just one Pokemon is unnecessary (and can lead to many complications down the road) when it should just be banned as a whole in first place (like we've always done...).

*sigh* I keep on going over the same points, but they are shattered in diferent threads.

A pokemon's tiering is desided by its best package of moves, abilities stats, ect. Now Ho-oh, unless you do some serious screwing with, it will stay broken and banned. But Blaziken is diferent, you just take away one simple thing, its ability, and it slides way down, possibly to UU. While Ho-oh, will still be useable in Uber infact it will be used in 2 "tiers," if you want to call Uber a tier.

There is a big diference between taken something just broken, and handicapping it to make it able to use, and something that is majorly broken, messing it up everywhere, and then having it be in a lower tier.

Also, if you wan to keep a sort of rule for this whole process, so it doesn't slide down the hill into a lake, keep the pokemon useable in one tier, no more, and no less.

Unless its totally broken in its normal tier, but not useable in the banlist for higher, a classic example is in last gen with Deoxys-Normal in Uber and Shaymin in BL (or theorically every pokemon in Uber). You can't make a little snip to them, to make them drop down. Unless of course if you wish to ban moves, but thats a messy order that no one wants to deal with, while you can simply snip an ability, and its down. Pokemon have only 1-3 abilities, some very special to the pokemon, while moves are in a order of dozens, sometimes even hundreds.

If the bolded is true, why is it ok to remove an ability from a Pokemon, but not stats, or moves, or items? There is absolutely no difference between the two, but if I started to advocate that Mewtwo should be allowed in OU at level 80 nobody would support that, but Blaziken gets a new ability and all of a sudden it's okay to ban an ability on one Pokemon (an ability that is not broken by the way) because Blaziken used to UU without it? I could easily make the case that Mewtwo is UU at a certain level, we just wouldn't know because we've never given it a shot, but we know that Mewtwo at it's full potential is broken, and therefore banned and is only available in Ubers.

What you're suggesting in banning Speed Boost Blaziken is fundamentally no different than my example with Mewtwo. The only reason why this is controversial now is because Blaziken was UU last gen, but with it's new ability it is Uber, and a jump like this is unprecedented. You said it yourself, Pokemon are tiered (or banned) based on their based available set, and Blaziken's best available set is with Speed Boost, and that means Blaziken is Uber. What you're suggesting is completely contradicting everything else you're saying.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

What you're suggesting in banning Speed Boost Blaziken is fundamentally no different than my example with Mewtwo. The only reason why this is controversial now is because Blaziken was UU last gen, but with it's new ability it is Uber, and a jump like this is unprecedented. You said it yourself, Pokemon are tiered (or banned) based on their based available set, and Blaziken's best available set is with Speed Boost, and that means Blaziken is Uber. What you're suggesting is completely contradicting everything else you're saying.

Uh, I forgot about that, but I do have a rebuttle for it.

What I suggest is that you ban broken abilties on certain pokemon, even though its the best, so you can have the pokemon be used. Now, as you said, Uber is used as a playable tier at times, but many pokemon just aren't used. Things should be done so pokemon get used, espesailly if its as easy as banning an ability. But moves are icky, and I don't want to get into that right now. Now as a said, the Mewtwo example is null and void, since Mewtwo is used in Uber, it doesn't need to be used in OU.

 

[iDunno]

Ohey guess what Ubers is a banlist before it is a metagame; it doesn't fucking matter if a Pokemon gets used there or not. If its broken in OU it is banned to the Uber tier. End. Of. Story.


People need to realize that all arguments that are based on the view "It isn't used in Ubers, so it should be OU" are hopelessly retarded.

 

[Sajak]

Uh, I forgot about that, but I do have a rebuttle for it.

What I suggest is that you ban broken abilties on certain pokemon, even though its the best, so you can have the pokemon be used. Now, as you said, Uber is used as a playable tier at times, but many pokemon just aren't used. Things should be done so pokemon get used, espesailly if its as easy as banning an ability. But moves are icky, and I don't want to get into that right now. Now as a said, the Mewtwo example is null and void, since Mewtwo is used in Uber, it doesn't need to be used in OU.

The point of banning an aspect of the game is not to keep things usable. If that were the point, then level 80 Mewtwo should be allowed so he can be used in OU, just as much as Blaze Blaziken should be allowed in OU (and below if that's where he places). The example with Mewtwo is absolutely no different than what you're suggesting, other than I want to adjust his stats and you want to adjust Blaziken's ability. There is no difference between the two, which is why Blaziken, as a whole, is banned, and it is the same reason why Mewtwo, as a whole, is banned. You can't nitpick certain parts out just so it can be used because you want it to be available. If you're going to allow that to happen, you have to allow it as an option for all aspects for every other Pokemon, and that includes stats, levels, moves, abilities, and natures.

What you're advocating for and what you're saying contradict each other entirely, and the only reason why you can't see this is because you still see Blaziken as he is with Blaze, and not as he is as one entire package, which includes Speed Boost. What you are trying to argue over is a matter of fact, and not opinion, and you are trying to argue against the facts here.

 

[Lightning Tiger]

Interesting poll results, there are more poeple who wnat to ban drizzle than there are who want to ban Kingdra and Ludicolo and them, so far anyway.

Again, cant we just have 2 separate tiers?, one with no perma weather and another with perma weather where you guys who want to ban pokemon can ban all the pokes you want until rain is manageable for you. that way everyones happy.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

Interesting poll results, there are more poeple who wnat to ban drizzle than there are who want to ban Kingdra and Ludicolo and them, so far anyway.

Again, cant we just have 2 separate tiers?, one with no perma weather and another with perma weather where you guys who want to ban pokemon can ban all the pokes you want until rain is manageable for you. that way everyones happy.

Which one would be Standard?

 

[Afti]

A Pokémon is a discrete unit- a combination of stats, ability, movepool, typing, and occasionally (ex: Skymin) some small amount of extraordinary characteristics. (ex: reverting to stock Shaymin when frozen)

We can only ban discrete gameplay elements.

We can ban an item outright, preventing any use of the item.

We can ban a move outright, preventing any use of the move.

We can ban an ability outright, preventing any use of the ability.

And, of course, we can ban a Pokémon outright, preventing any use of the Pokémon.

Aldaron's proposal is an exceptional measure designed to ban one discrete unit (Swift Swim) under certain conditions, but is still a ban on a discrete element of gameplay- Swift Swim. Luvdisc can't use it, even though it doesn't break it, because it's banned on any team also containing Drizzle. Furthermore, Aldaron's proposal is accepted solely due to the fact that banning either Swift Swim or Drizzle absolutely would eradicate an entire playstyle- it is an ugly, ugly kludge which is used due to necessity. This would be closest to banning Blaziken+Drought, if anything; that would be a ban on a discrete unit of gameplay (Blaziken) under certain conditions. (Of course, Blaze is still broken without Sun, so I'm not proposing this.)

So, let's analyze the discrete, ban-able elements of Blaziken:

The Pokémon itself- this is what is banned. Blaziken can be banned outright; we are not changing the way the Pokémon works, merely preventing its use.

Speed Boost- Speed Boost could be banned, were it deemed worthwhile. Speed Boost is a discrete unit of gameplay; Speed Boost is an ability. If banned, Speed Boost is the only thing declared illegal- the Pokémon is not made illegal. Speed Boost can not be brought into battle. As long as the Pokémon, regardless of its species, does not use a banned move or ability it can be brought into battle.

Hi Jump Kick- HJK could be banned, were it deemed worthwhile. HJK is a discrete unit of gameplay; HJK is a move. If banned, HJK is the only thing declared illegal- the Pokémon is not made illegal. Hi Jump Kick can not be brought into battle. As long as the Pokémon, regardless of its species, does not use a banned move or ability it can be brought into battle.



Blaziken+Speed Boost- This is an unprecedented ban of something that is not a discrete element of gameplay. You are banning either Blaziken as long as its ability is Speed Boost, or Speed Boost as long as it is used on Blaziken. Either way, there is a fundamental difference between Drizzle+Swift Swim and Blaziken+Speed Boost. Drizzle is a condition that remains in play after its user leaves the field, and does so indefinitely. Drizzle is an entire playstyle, as opposed to simply being one unit of gameplay; it has an exceptional degree of utility. So, Drizzle can be treated as a condition. Hypothetically, so could Drought, Sand Stream, or Snow Warning. Blaziken is, needless to say, not such a situation. Blaziken is one unit of gameplay, and can be removed without widespread effects on the metagame. It has been deemed healthier for the metagame to ban Blaziken than Speed Boost or Hi Jump Kick, due to the wide variety of Pokémon those elements do NOT break, and so Blaziken is banned.

 

[yee]

We can ban a move outright, preventing any use of the move.

We can ban an ability outright, preventing any use of the ability.

And, of course, we can ban a Pokémon outright, preventing any use of the Pokémon.

Aldaron's proposal is an exceptional measure designed to ban one discrete unit (Swift Swim) under certain conditions, but is still a ban on a discrete element of gameplay- Swift Swim. Luvdisc can't use it, even though it doesn't break it, because it's banned on any team also containing Drizzle. Furthermore, Aldaron's proposal is accepted solely due to the fact that banning either Swift Swim or Drizzle absolutely would eradicate an entire playstyle- it is an ugly, ugly kludge which is used due to necessity. This would be closest to banning Blaziken+Drought, if anything; that would be a ban on a discrete unit of gameplay (Blaziken) under certain conditions. (Of course, Blaze is still broken without Sun, so I'm not proposing this.)

So, let's analyze the discrete, ban-able elements of Blaziken:

The Pokémon itself- this is what is banned. Blaziken can be banned outright; we are not changing the way the Pokémon works, merely preventing its use.

Speed Boost- Speed Boost could be banned, were it deemed worthwhile. Speed Boost is a discrete unit of gameplay; Speed Boost is an ability. If banned, Speed Boost is the only thing declared illegal- the Pokémon is not made illegal. Speed Boost can not be brought into battle. As long as the Pokémon, regardless of its species, does not use a banned move or ability it can be brought into battle.

Hi Jump Kick- HJK could be banned, were it deemed worthwhile. HJK is a discrete unit of gameplay; HJK is a move. If banned, HJK is the only thing declared illegal- the Pokémon is not made illegal. Hi Jump Kick can not be brought into battle. As long as the Pokémon, regardless of its species, does not use a banned move or ability it can be brought into battle.



Blaziken+Speed Boost- This is an unprecedented ban of something that is not a discrete element of gameplay. You are banning either Blaziken as long as its ability is Speed Boost, or Speed Boost as long as it is used on Blaziken. Either way, there is a fundamental difference between Drizzle+Swift Swim and Blaziken+Speed Boost. Drizzle is a condition that remains in play after its user leaves the field, and does so indefinitely. Drizzle is an entire playstyle, as opposed to simply being one unit of gameplay; it has an exceptional degree of utility. So, Drizzle can be treated as a condition. Hypothetically, so could Drought, Sand Stream, or Snow Warning. Blaziken is, needless to say, not such a situation. Blaziken is one unit of gameplay, and can be removed without widespread effects on the metagame. It has been deemed healthier for the metagame to ban Blaziken than Speed Boost or Hi Jump Kick, due to the wide variety of Pokémon those elements do NOT break, and so Blaziken is banned.

You could also ban Stone Edge, Shadow Claw, and Hidden Power on Blaze to prevent him from getting past his checks lol.

Because Smogon likes to ban things as a whole I think Aldaron's prop. should be spread to all weathers, because it is currently extremely hard if not possible to build an offensive team without weather, without weather you are forced to use a full defensive team to have a fair chance against all of these sweepers, because even if you use the move Hail somewhere, multiple priority users, a scarfer, and a bulky pokemon you cant effectively handle all of them without compromising your team. If we treat all weathers equally and ban (+2) speed abilities along perma-weather as a whole I believe we can keep all existing playstyles and make "normal" teams more viable when offensively based, as these pokemon can't outrun your scarfer and everything anymore.

Thoughts?

 

[Slideskata]

Interesting poll results, there are more poeple who wnat to ban drizzle than there are who want to ban Kingdra and Ludicolo and them, so far anyway.

Again, cant we just have 2 separate tiers?, one with no perma weather and another with perma weather where you guys who want to ban pokemon can ban all the pokes you want until rain is manageable for you. that way everyones happy.

That's what I would like, the one with no permanant weather is called Weatherless/ Clear Skies and is on a lot of PO servers. I say there are two main reasons Rain is falling in usage as we type: Aladron's proposal and Sandstorm. Neither of these are in effect in weatherless, not to mention rain itself.

And right now on TeamUber we are trying Blaziken in Ubers, so I will inform you guys about the results.