Aldaron's proposal: Alternatives?

What options would you be satisfied with? (Vote for all)

  • Continue banning Swift Swim + Drizzle permanently

    Votes: 110 24.9%
  • Ban Swift Swim

    Votes: 23 5.2%
  • Ban individual broken Swift Swim sweepers

    Votes: 90 20.4%
  • Ban individual broken Swift Swim sweepers, but only with Drizzle

    Votes: 65 14.7%
  • Ban individual broken Swift Swim sweepers, but only with Swift Swim

    Votes: 43 9.8%
  • Ban individual broken Swift Swim sweepers, but only with both Drizzle and Swift Swim

    Votes: 82 18.6%
  • Ban Drizzle entirely

    Votes: 114 25.9%
  • Ban permanent weather entirely

    Votes: 83 18.8%
  • Don't ban anything

    Votes: 98 22.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 19 4.3%

  • Total voters
    441
Except that neither Chlorophyll nor Sand Throw break much of anything.

Sand Throw has one dubious user in Excadrill which is still possible to deal with, and Chlorophyll suffers from being unable to exploit Sun's boost to Fire attacks- nothing hits with the sheer power of say, Kingdra.

You could also ban Stone Edge, Shadow Claw, and Hidden Power on Blaze to prevent him from getting past his checks lol.
Forgive me for not wanting to waste time on an even more complex ban with even less support.
 
The way it is now, Rain is not broken without the Swift Swim user. Yet, many people voted for it to be banned. Do people just not like it or something? That isn't a valid reason at all.
 
I just had a thought, feel free to correct me on this if I'm mistaken on anything. I've heard people saying that they don't like the Drizzle+Swift Swim ban because it's a complex ban. But haven't we had complex bans before? Wasn't there a rule against Perish Trapping in GSC as well as a rule against Hidden Power legendaries? Then last Generation we had Latias in OU but Latias+Soul Dew wasn't allowed. Just recently we banned Smeargle+Ingrain in RSE. I don't think saying no Drizzle+Swift Swim is any more complicated than any of these bans.

Again, I may be missing something, but I don't see why we just can't allow the Drizzle+Swift Swim ban to remain in effect for now even if it is a "complex ban"
 
I actually find Venusaur much more annoying to deal with then Kingdra, but its just the structure of my teams. My problem with it is that Chlorophyll and Sand Rush make it really hard to use a non-weather team.

Btw I was joking about Blaziken if it wasn't obvious I don't support him coming back to OU in any way, shape, or form. Well unless a bunch of Steel/Ghost types with Flash Fire and other random things with good stats come out of the Dream World. Yeah not happening.
 
Situation isn't quite comparable.

Perish trapping/HP legends ban in GSC is IIRC not used any more in most tournaments, and the Soul Dew ban is absolute- even though it doesn't DO anything, you can't use Starmie+Soul Dew either.

I have no real objection to a complex ban where justified, though I'd like the extra precision of banning broken Pokémon under Drizzle.
 
Ok I didn't know about the GSC stuff. But that still leaves the Ingrain Smeargle ban, that's definitely a complex ban. And even though it ended up absolute, the idea of the Soul Dew ban clearly began as a way to get Latias (and Latios at first) into OU, testing them without Soul Dew.

I'm just saying that I don't really see a problem with "complex bans"
 
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.
That's hardly certain. Wobba would much rather give up half its movepool than lose its ability.

And after all, it's not banning. It is, as you said, separating the legal Ho-oh from the illegal Ho-oh, simple as that.
 

Woodchuck

actual cannibal
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Blaziken and Swift Swimmers are two completely different cases. Banning Blaziken doesn't destroy an entire playstyle, while banning Drizzle does.
I saw Aldaron's proposal as a necessary measure that, while complex and a bit ugly for a ban, made the metagame healthier and, more importantly, made it actually possible to run a non-weather team. That is the kind of diversity we want. However, I think it could be fine-tuned by banning specific Swift Swimmers that are broken and bringing the others back. If it turns out that the so-called "UU Swimmers" are broken as well, then we'll ban everything but Luvdisc and Magikarp so that people can't make those devil's advocate arguments anymore.
Another point I would like to make is Blaziken is virtually outclassed by Infernape without Speed Boost and I don't see why people really care that it was banned as opposed to being separated from Speed Boost.

On another note, I saw a post a while back that stated that weathers should be banned "to bring the competitive metagame back to its roots." Stop thinking 4th gen, people. Just because the generation is different doesn't mean it should be changed to be identical to the last one. If we start banning all of the weathers, this will create a precedent where we, the Smogon community, get stuck in the past as other communities go with what is actually in the game. If you want to play weatherless, play 4th gen.
 
???

Whichever one gets the most play obviously. Isnt standard called the "standard" because its the tier/mode most players play in?
Yes, fair enough.

It's the other way around actually. :P People play in a certain tier because it is the standard tier.
I agree with Sajak here. Which tier is standard is very important, and if we split OU into two tiers, people will ask which one is standard before they even build teams for either (not everyone but a lot of people). Standard is what is used in official smogon tournaments (except tours which use several tiers).

And if we chose one of the two to be standard at the beginning, unless it turns out to be horribly unbalanced, it will get more people.
 
I agree with Sajak here. Which tier is standard is very important, and if we split OU into two tiers, people will ask which one is standard before they even build teams for either (not everyone but a lot of people). Standard is what is used in official smogon tournaments (except tours which use several tiers).

And if we chose one of the two to be standard at the beginning, unless it turns out to be horribly unbalanced, it will get more people.
I completely agree with Arc. The reason that Wifi OU is probably played more than Dream World OU is the fact that it is the "Standard" metagame. And besides, creating 2 OU's would just make the tiering process even more difficult and a real pain in the ass. 2 Banlists means 2 Ubers and what of the lesser tiers as well? 2 BL's, 2 UU's, etc... It's just too much work for too little a pay off. And even then people might not play the seperate tier. Not to mention Dream world. So we will have Wifi OU, Dream World OU, Clear Skies OU and Dream World (Clear Skies) OU. That seems a bit much dont you think....
 
I agree with Sajak here. Which tier is standard is very important, and if we split OU into two tiers, people will ask which one is standard before they even build teams for either (not everyone but a lot of people). Standard is what is used in official smogon tournaments (except tours which use several tiers).

And if we chose one of the two to be standard at the beginning, unless it turns out to be horribly unbalanced, it will get more people.
Then make the one with weather the standard.
I completely agree with Arc. The reason that Wifi OU is probably played more than Dream World OU is the fact that it is the "Standard" metagame. And besides, creating 2 OU's would just make the tiering process even more difficult and a real pain in the ass. 2 Banlists means 2 Ubers and what of the lesser tiers as well? 2 BL's, 2 UU's, etc... It's just too much work for too little a pay off. And even then people might not play the seperate tier. Not to mention Dream world. So we will have Wifi OU, Dream World OU, Clear Skies OU and Dream World (Clear Skies) OU. That seems a bit much dont you think....
nonsense, Ubers is "everything goes", there isnt supposed to be anything banned from ubers so there would not be 2 ubers. There would also not be two UU's or BL's either because pretty much all the weather starters will be OU and are unlikely to fall below OU, therefore there will never be any permanet weather in those tiers, as nd therefore no need to have two of each of those.

also once all the dreamworld abilitieas are released there will be no point in having a seperate tier for dream world abilities.

Basically, your exagerating.

we can easily make a seperate tier without drizzle, drought, or sandstream.
 
PO has implemented a clear skies tier, and it's withered away from lack of people. It didn't have many people. Why? It was non-standard. Everyone views it as only an alternative metagame, and like other "gimmick" metagames, it is barely used. Noobs don't learn it. People just don't play it. Indeed, it has even less of a niche than other gimmick metas like challenge cup.

Anyway, people don't care if they can play this way, if they want they can go to the battle me thread with custom rules and so on. They only care what the standard is. Making an alternative tier changes nothing, when clear-skies advocates want their metagame in standard tournaments, and so on. The best it can do is offer some perspective, but if so it should be run as a temporary suspect ladder.
 
Then make the one with weather the standard.nonsense, Ubers is "everything goes", there isnt supposed to be anything banned from ubers so there would not be 2 ubers. There would also not be two UU's or BL's either because pretty much all the weather starters will be OU and are unlikely to fall below OU, therefore there will never be any permanet weather in those tiers, as nd therefore no need to have two of each of those.

also once all the dreamworld abilitieas are released there will be no point in having a seperate tier for dream world abilities.

Basically, your exagerating.

we can easily make a seperate tier without drizzle, drought, or sandstream.
First of all, if the one with the weather was Standard then nobody would bother playing the Clear Skies tier. Since they know deep down that it is just a side tier created for their amusement and a simple "what if". They implemented it on the main PO server and almost no one played it at all. So the idea was pretty much moot...

Even though Ubers is everything goes, it is also a Banlist. So, in the Clear Skies tier Drizzle, Drought, Hail and Sandstorm would be banned. Then new strategies would arise with standard teams and some other pokemon such as Lati@s and Deoxys-S might be banned. Whereas in the Standard weather tier these pokemon might be completely balanced. So, one of the banlists would contain Latios (for example) and one would not. That means that there will essentially be 2 banlists. Not Ubers but banlists.

However there will be 2 UU's, BL's and etc. Even though all weather-inducing abilities are only in the OU tier, the complete absence of weather will make many pokemon such as Kingdra/Exca/Ludi/Landorus etc.. fall to the UU/BL tier. And the opposite would also occur as with perma-weather gone some previously weaker pokemon will be able to rise from UU and take their place in OU. So yes, there will be 2 UU's and so on. Basically, it makes things very unnecessarily complicated.

Also, you can't be 100% certain that every single Dream World ability will be released. And even if they did do so, who knows how long it would take. It could take the next 4 years for all we know...
 
Everyone supporting a "weatherless" metagame should read this thread. Also keep in mind that PO's server has a weatherless meta, and not even the players who complain about weather play it because nobody else does.

There would be so many problems associated with having a weather and weatherless meta, and only one of them would see any usage. Stop bitching about weather or nominate it as you have every single round, only to see it voted OU for the 4th time in a row.
 
Alright. After long consideration and collecting my thoughts on the topic, with consideration to the poll results, and reading the comments over the past three days the thread has been on DST, along with Thorhammer's previous thread, I'd like to post my main collective thoughts on the manner.

I feel that Aldaron's proposal should remain as it is for now. After the metagame has stabalized, I feel the Drizzle + Swift Swim clause should be lifted, and suspect testing should ensue afterwards to determine if individual Pokemon need to be called to a vote.

There are numerous reasons for this.

1) Out of all the poll options, only the options of Ban Swift Swim, Ban Individual Pokemon, and Ban Drizzle support simplicity in the ruleset. I feel we cannot have a complex ruleset, and we must simplify. This means Aldaron's proposal will not do in the long run, but for short term purposes it will serve. However, every other option either supports the inclusion of the proposal indefinitely, or seeks to further complicate our ruleset. I feel this is not an option.

2) Ban Swift Swim, while it does advocate the current metagame we are in right now (which to some, might be considered relatively balanced) with the fewest bans possible (zero bans to be exact), those who perpetuate the argument that it is the Pokemon that are at the effect of the problem are correct. While I dislike the chicken and the egg arguments, simply put, it is not deniable that Drizzle does not succeed in making Magikarp with Swift Swim broken, nor does Swift Swim make Magikarp broken when coupled with Drizzle. However, Kingdra is put in to question in the same circumstances. The blame inevitably falls on the Pokemon, not Drizzle or Swift Swim.

Also, by putting Aldaron's proposal in to effect, we essentially banned Swift Swim from play, rather than the individual Pokemon. While this is not entirely true, as you can use Swift Swim and Drizzle on teams not utilizing the other ability, the implications are still similar. We recently banned Blaziken outright, with no exception to Blaze Blaziken, under the understanding that a Pokemon must be banned in its entirety, and we cannot complicate our rulesets by deviating from the simplicity of the process and attempting to put in more opinion than is necessary.

Because of this, we've essentially been playing favorites. This needs to stop, and we need to deal with the problem at hand the way we've done throughout all of our suspect testing.

3) It is silly to consider any of the options in this poll when there is still a possibility that Drizzle might be banned anyway. If that were to occur, it would make all this discussion moot. I feel that this decision should be waited on until the metagame has been deemed balanced enough to deal with the issue of removing Aldaron's proposal, as by that time we would have concluded whether or not the community can handle rain by itself at all.

4) While it was a nice notion, the suggestion of an alternate metagame where weather is prohibited isn't an option. As people have brought up, it will divide the community, and a standard needs to be decided upon. I originally thought that whatever people gravitated towards would simply become the standard; even if that were the case, there is still the fact that we have C&C Analysis done for the standard metagame, and all of it would have to be overhauled by this process. I don't think the effort is worth it. I also don't foresee many people playing the alternate metagame, for the same reasons people have mentioned. PO's server has MANY more players than ours, and even their Clear Skies tier sees very little play. It's simply not practical.

So, as I stated above, I feel we should come back to this at a later date, when people are not talking about whether Latios, Deoxys-S and Thunderus need to go, and when Drizzle has been deemed OU by at least the majority of the community. Once we have a stable metagame, we can revisit this topic, remove the proposal, and nominate, test, and subsequently ban the necessary suspects one by one, the way we should have.

I apologize if this is tl;dr, but thanks for your time.
 
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.
It has absolutely nothing to do with want, I honestly don't care about using Blaziken in UU, if thats what your thinking. But I believe you should have the right to use them.

And there is a fudamental diference between Mewtwo and Blaziken.

1. You can not easily screw with Mewtwo to make it useable in OU, while with Blaziken, all you need to do is iliminate ONE ability on it.
2. Your ignoring the proposal I had, that you don't expand a pokemon into more then 1 tier. Blaziken might be Uber, but thats doesn't mean its used in Uber, its just banned there, while Mewtwo is used in uber. They are very fudamentally diferent here, just becuase they are in the same tier now, does not make Blaziken an Uber-Tier pokemon, no its a OU-Banned pokemon.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with want, I honestly don't care about using Blaziken in UU, if thats what your thinking. But I believe you should have the right to use them.

And there is a fudamental diference between Mewtwo and Blaziken.

1. You can not easily screw with Mewtwo to make it useable in OU, while with Blaziken, all you need to do is iliminate ONE ability on it.
2. Your ignoring the proposal I had, that you don't expand a pokemon into more then 1 tier. Blaziken might be Uber, but thats doesn't mean its used in Uber, its just banned there, while Mewtwo is used in uber. They are very fudamentally diferent here, just becuase they are in the same tier now, does not make Blaziken an Uber-Tier pokemon, no its a OU-Banned pokemon.
There are many things fundamentally wrong about those statements. For one thing, NOTHING has the "right" to be OU. If a pokemon is deemed broken then it is BROKEN. If you want to make an exception for Blaziken then you will have to do so for ALL of them.

Whether or not it is easier to "screw" a pokemon to make it OU doesn't change the fact that you Screwed it. So, if you screwed Blaziken then we can screw anything else we want, including Mewtwo.

A pokemon's usage in Ubers is irrelevant. Whether or not Blaziken is used in Ubers is irrelevant. The FACT that it resides within the Uber tier however is NOT irrelevant. "its a OU-Banned pokemon" <-- your words. And yet you want to allow it back into OU? The point is that Blaziken is an Uber pokemon. Fullstop. Anything and everything you have proposed would mean nerfing it to let it back into OU. And in that case, we should be able to do that for all of the Ubers then.
 
ban swift swim, its simple and no pokemon is then banned, they all have other abilities, i believe, and weather is just what this genaration is about, gen 4 it was stealth rock, don't ban drizzle because you don't like it, adapt, because infinite rain isn't broken.
 

haunter

Banned deucer.
Swift swim is not broken when not supported with permanent rain. Drizzle is not broken when not paired with some swift swim sweepers. Aldaron's proposal is the way to go, we just need to limit the combo ban to those swift swimmers (Kingdra, Kabutops and maybe Ludicolo) that become OP when supported with permanent rain.
 
Swift swim is not broken when not supported with permanent rain. Drizzle is not broken when not paired with some swift swim sweepers. Aldaron's proposal is the way to go, we just need to limit the combo ban to those swift swimmers (Kingdra, Kabutops and maybe Ludicolo) that become OP when supported with permanent rain.
So, are you stating that we need to make a combo ban of Pokemon+ability+ability? That would of course mean these three bans:
- Kingdra+SwSw+Drizzle
- Ludicolo+SwSw+Drizzle
- Kabutops+SwSw+Drizzle
- More?

Well i dont know about you, but if people are having trouble fathoming even an ability+ability ban, i doubt this even more complex ban would really solve anything other than creating more loopholes for us to exploit.

Although, i agree 100% that this would be the "best" and most "fair" option. However it is not something that can be accomplished very easily and without it's certain share of controversy. Not to mention the voting.
 
There are many things fundamentally wrong about those statements. For one thing, NOTHING has the "right" to be OU. If a pokemon is deemed broken then it is BROKEN. If you want to make an exception for Blaziken then you will have to do so for ALL of them.

Whether or not it is easier to "screw" a pokemon to make it OU doesn't change the fact that you Screwed it. So, if you screwed Blaziken then we can screw anything else we want, including Mewtwo.

A pokemon's usage in Ubers is irrelevant. Whether or not Blaziken is used in Ubers is irrelevant. The FACT that it resides within the Uber tier however is NOT irrelevant. "its a OU-Banned pokemon" <-- your words. And yet you want to allow it back into OU? The point is that Blaziken is an Uber pokemon. Fullstop. Anything and everything you have proposed would mean nerfing it to let it back into OU. And in that case, we should be able to do that for all of the Ubers then.
OU-Banned is not Uber, its simply not. And if its not Uber totally, I think it does have the right to be considered in OU. No one ever considered Mewtwo in OU, yet Blaziken was in OU for months. You can not compare them, they are very diferent.

Ubers is hard to use as a standpoint becuase, its used both as a banlist and a tier, so if you sugest to bring something out of Uber, many will compare it to bringing real Ubers, down to OU.

Instead look a few points lower, down to OU-BL-UU. If a pokemon is banned in UU, it goes to BL, which is not the same as OU. You can not compare OU pokemon to BL pokemon, yet your are comparing real Ubers, to ones just banned from OU. Its very similar, the only diference is Ubers is compacted, even though there are structural divides. Last gen wynaut was not Uber potential, but it was banned from OU. Its a very similar case, Mewtwo is nowhere in the realm as wynaut, as with Blaziken. You need to logically diference them, instead of blindingly blanketing them.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top