-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Aldaron's proposal: Satisfied?
- Thread starter Thorhammer
- Start date
Swift Swim is not what is broken, and should not be banned.
You're essentially banning "half" of a lot of pokemon niche-wise, more so if Swift Swim was their only niche.
Again, you can't point the finger at one particular aspect of the problem. It gets kinda tiring hearing this, because it's really not that cut and dry.
Swift Swim by itself is not broken.
Drizzle by itself is not broken.
The Pokemon that abuse either by themselves are not broken.
How exactly do you justify what should and shouldn't be banned, based on what is and isn't broken, when by themselves, nothing is broken?
You can't. We should be basing our decision on what is the simplest, most concise, and most desirable decision for the metagame (whatever the community interprets that to be).
...except no one is using Swift Swim now that the combo ban has been implemented anyway.
How is the pokemon itself not broken? If it can abuse the infinite rain while other pokemon can't, then it's clearly a characteristic of that pokemon itself.
Yes, and... ? Just because our current system is flawed doesn't mean we can keep implementing those flaws in later systems.
If it requires Drizzle Politoed in order to ensue its broken status, it isn't broken by itself, is it? That sounds pretty self explanatory to me.
What flawed system exactly are you referring to? Swift Swim Pokemon aren't being used due to the way the metagame has developed thanks to the combo ban. The combo ban itself doesn't prevent Swift Swim users, hence why I see no relavent repercussions in banning Swift Swim if isn't going to be used to begin with.
Yes... it needs team support, like pretty much every pokemon out there, but how does that relate to whether its broken or not?
Here, what I mean is:
No ban -> Swift Swim Ban = Banning too many niches
No ban -> Alderon's proposal -> Swift Swim Ban = Banning too many niches
It doesn't matter if we have a intermediate step or not, the flaw is still there.
That's exactly right, because it isn't just one aspect, it's the combination of the ability and the pokemon with how readily available the weather condition is, and as I've said before, Pokemon are viewed in their entirety when being considered for a ban, so it should be the Pokemon being banned when they are the actual problem when they are the ones that are able to abuse the conditions.
Were this not the case, every swift swimmer would be broken regardless of conditions. If Swift Swim was banned, it would mean any Pokemon having Swift Swim, regardless of conditions, would be broken. This isn't the case, because even Kingdra, Kabutops, and Ludicolo are barely OU material with just Swift Swim.
While I agree with your argument overall, I'm fairly sure that we look at pokemon in optimal conditions (that the team can actually provide) when tiering, so in this case, we would be looking at just those pokemon in Drizzle.
Still, Floatzel won't be broken in any optimal condition.
lmitchell0012
Wi-Fi Blacklisted
I'm sorry, but aldaron's proposal just SUCKS! It basically makes swift swim useless for kingdra, ludicolo, kabutops and anyone else who wants to use it. When you ban a pokemon's most useful ability, it severely takes away from their overall usefulness in the metagame. Rather than creating complex bans, I think we should have just banned drizzle politoed. Swift swim users deserve their chance to shine in the metagame. Swift swim isn't the issue here, it's drizzle.
As far as the other types of permanent weather are concerned, I don't see an issue. Rain is broken because it increases move power and speed (essentially making it so you need little or no stat raising moves to sweep). With the other permanent weather types, you have power or speed but not both.
As far as the other types of permanent weather are concerned, I don't see an issue. Rain is broken because it increases move power and speed (essentially making it so you need little or no stat raising moves to sweep). With the other permanent weather types, you have power or speed but not both.
I'm saying if we were to ban Swift Swim, then the ability itself would have to cause the Pokemon to be broken, which is why I'm completely against a ban of Swift Swim only.
This is why we passed Aldaron's proposal: so people wouldn't suddenly get hyped up to ban Drizzle.
And how would Swift Swim users shine better without Drizzle versus now? They'd have the exact same resources support-wise as they do now.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just pointing out that you still have to give them optimal conditions support-wise when considering if they're broken, since that's how every pokemon is considered Uber/non-Uber; that's why we don't care about Sunny-Day-supported Palkia when we're tiering it.
Weather conditions and team support are not the same thing.
Then you're implying that currently we are banning too many niches. I would simply disagree with you. I think the current predicament is perfectly acceptable. It's how it's being implemented that I have an issue with. Feel free to disagree.
Except it isn't just one Pokemon being put in to question by said weather condition. It is multiple. Had there been a singular threat, I may have been inclined to agree with you. Three to five? Potentially more? No.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of what we decide to ban, something that isn't broken within its own right is going to be shafted. This isn't exclusive to Swift Swim; Drizzle, and any potential Pokemon we put on the chopping block will fit this criteria also. I'm proposing Swift Swim being shafted so we don't exclude multiple Pokemon while we are able to maintain the benefits of Drizzle, and eliminate the complex ban we are currently using. At most, we lose the "niche" of running Rain Dance + Swift Swim offense, and if players feel that is a legitimate strategy in UU, I see no reason why OU and UU have separate clauses. They are different tiers.
I'll be going to bed. You have a reply, I'll respond tomorrow.
How so? Surely, the weather supports SwSw abusers. And it can't come from anywhere EXCEPT your team. It literally is "team support"; it's something the other team members do to help another pokemon do their job better.
I just don't see how weather doesn't fit in the definition of "team support".
Beartic's niche as a Swift Swim abuser was banned when it clearly wasn't an overcentralizing threat. That's one niche that was banned unnecessarily.
I completely disagree. The entire concept of weather teams is that the weather is used a support for the team. It is no different than entry hazards, screens, or trick room. Heck, last gen using Rain Dance was called providing rain support. Weather is team support in every possible way.
While I agree to some extent that my idea of banning all the broken Pokemon in rain is extensive, and it is simply the combination of the Pokemon, ability, and Drizzle, the fact that Pokemon are banned based on their best possible moveset is what makes banning the broken Pokemon the best solution. Garchomp would not have been banned last gen were it not paired with a Sand Streamer, and the combination of Garchomp and Sand Stream was not banned, it was just Garchomp receiving the ban despite the extra residual damage and evasion boost that the sand provided for Garchomp. I see no justifiable reason as to why this should change now simply because there are more abusers of this. If a Pokemon is capable of being broken without any extensive (or no) set up or support required, it needs to be banned, and this applies to all Pokemon.
As I've just explained, my idea is not banning something that would not be banned in it's own right. Kingdra's best set with proper support is Uber, same with Ludicolo and Kabutops. Banning individual Pokemon preserves all possible play styles, is as uncomplicated as possible, does not set new precedence, and is easy to test.
Just as an aside, in my opinion the best solution would be to ban the Pokemon + Ability/Abilities (because that is undeniably what is causing the problem, and this cannot be argued), but that just allows people to ban anything and really leaves the door wide open to the point where People can just start banning certain moves/abilities/items/anything else on specific Pokemon just for the sake of keeping as many Pokemon available will trying to keep things "fair". Objectively, banning the broken Pokemon outright seems to be the best option.
lmitchell0012
Wi-Fi Blacklisted
Well, I meant they would shine better in the sense that they wouldn't be broken, since there wouldn't be permanent rain anymore. I truly believe that drizzle is the problem. Infinite rain doesn't belong in OU. We can deal with other types of permanent weather, but rain we cannot...
I'm not sure if I believe that. Banning an ability on the pokemon is significantly different than banning a move or an item on a pokemon. A different ability fills a different niche and serves a completely different purpose than another one.
SwiftSwim Ludicolo functions as a powerful, bulky sweeper whoc an stay alive thanks to giga drain.
Raindish Ludicolo turns into a staller that can regenerate HP quite well. They don't really have anything in common.
Whilst i think this is probably the best alternative, for me, it brings ups the whole slippery slope argument. I mean, where do we draw the line with banning certain pokemon and abilities? Im not questioning anyone's thought process or anything like that, just wondering what we could do to prevent us going down a slippery slope where we end up banning Excadrill and Sandstream or Venusaur and Drought (not saying they're broken, just two solid examples of pokemon who are probably the best abusers of the other two (prominent) forms of weather.)
I think we're not going to get a very complex ban though. Blaziken was banned, rather than Blaziken+Speed Boost. The tiering contributors may see Kingdra+Drizzle, Kabutops+Drizzle, Ludicolo+Swift Swim+Drizzle as being way too complicated.
I seriously don't think that having 3 elements in a ban is anywhere near too complicated.
I seriously don't think that having 3 elements in a ban is anywhere near too complicated.
Lol, thats the worst thing I have ever read. If you ban Politoed, the current "useless" Kingdra, ludi, and kabutops stay the same as they do under aldaron's proposal. Wtf were are you thinking that banning poli would be different for kingdra than having kingdra + poli banned? We still have normal rain, and that is still viable.
The point still stands.
Now, you're perfectly allowed to use SwSw pokemon on non Drizzle teams.
After a Drizzle ban, you're perfectly allowed (and only allowed) to use SwSw pokemon on non Drizzle teams.
Explain the supposed "difference".
I have few opinions on the issue that have already been expressed by many users before me, and probably with better skill. I simply feel the voting/proposal process for these things has become appallingly lazy, and not extensive enough (Lazy now? A subjective topic, but in my opinion lazy at the time). A quick shortcut to getting things done quickly, a bit too quickly.
I feel Aldaron's proposal was accepted not because it was the best, most refined and compromising choice, but merely for the fact it was simply "good enough" at the time.
I feel Aldaron's proposal was accepted not because it was the best, most refined and compromising choice, but merely for the fact it was simply "good enough" at the time.