Milkyway has spent an awfully long time to say something that has been in my mind for quite a while. It is to do with forms of argument more than mon's so heads up in advance. Also I know and respect that you didn't tl;dr but I think you can by a few ad absurdums.
I would like to elabourate on the comment:
"The ability 'arena trap' is uncompetetive"
To prove this:
a) You must either explain why it is traps too many things trapped in this case (percentage or raw number). Good previous posts on this idea.
b) You must explain why trapping abilities on a mon at x winrate or x effect size is a problem.
c) You must explain why there is neither a metagame that could come to exist, nor a mon that could have arena trap, that was not 'overpowered' (by whatever definition you use
d) You must beleive that trapping as an ability always is uncompetetive (probably by the old reduces skill rule)
e) You must beleive that trapping always is uncompetetive, even in the form of whirlpool and spider web.
f) You must beleive that trapping is not uncompetetive inherently, but any form of trapping with the counterplay avaliable atm in the game would always be a problem (though this is an odd argument given that the prominence of U-turn on the things trapped is a form of counterplay)
g) You must beleive that trapping is not uncompetetive inherently, but arena trap with the counterplay avaliable atm in the game would always be a problem
If there is a way to logically prove statement 1) apart from doing the above please explain it.
Now the test of how many arguments in this thread have done the above by single example:
PoisonousPen: doesn't argue against arena trap for the most part, only the compound, hence dugtrio is the problem for the most part. Where they do argue against arena trap;
"According to Smogon's rulebook, it removes player choice, and really should qualify for the textbook definition of uncompetitive." This fits the argument of Trapping always is uncompetetive, yet, I don't think that this user has issue with spiders web so it doesn't qualify for any of the above.
"-Magnet Pull and Arena Trap are not the same thing. Not only is MP much more more niche (Seriously, how many Magnet Pull users have you seen?), but it affect a much more smaller group of 'mons. (Steel-Types versus non Ghost grounded mons. The numerical difference is staggering.)". They are clearly not the same thing and this argument begins to look like argument a). However, no numbers are presented so it fails criteria a). In addition if the argument is only to be made with the number of things trapped then the user needs also to explain why trapping is only an issue at high numbers and when it is an ability; trapping moves trap more mons than both magnet pull and arena trap without being uncompetetive.
The above may seem pedantic as you would comment 'trapping moves give you a choice at least before the move is used' however I would note that pursuit does not give you a chocie, you have to take the damage if they click the move. You may comment 'trapping at the cost of a move is fine' in which case I would ask, if there were a move that could trap you before you switched for the duration that the user was in for [allowing for u-turn and shed shell as counterplay] would this move be balanced... probably not The point I am making is explaining why trapping as a move is balanced is not as simple as saying, none of the moves do what trapping abilities do, because if a move that did the above came out, you would need a new argument of why that was broken, and it would likely end up at it generates 50/50's or it traps too much for the cost of doing it. This of course begs the questions 1) would any mon with arena trap generate 50/50'? 2)is running a mon with an ability not a cost of the ability to trap? Again rendering the dugtrio arena trap compound the problem not the ability
To phrase the above in logical steps:
1)Trapping by virtue of trapping too many things cannot be the sole issue or trappping moves would be banned
2)Trapping moves are not worthy of ban because of something about them.
2)a) Because they don't remove choice on a mon of the users choice when used (as you can switch first)
2)a)i) Pursuit removes the choice of taking damage. Having to take damage is considered balanced, so the issue isn't removing player choice. If pursuit was an OHKO move, it would be banned, therefore, pursuit is balanced because it doesn't remove enough choice (losing a mon of your opponents choice).
2)b) Because they do remove choice but at too great a cost to the user to be broken. This could be the cost of them not trapping things they are good against because the opponent gets to switch out first or because using that move is too costly to the aim of winning the battle.
3a) if 2a) is the reason that trapping moves are not worthy of a ban then this applies to Arena trap. If Arena trap was on a mon that did negligble damage to things in OU it would still remove the choice to switch but the choice loss is not too great to render the ability broken. (To ad absurdum, if the only thing that had arena trap was a 1hp mon with only splash and no immunities this would clearly not be a problem)
3b) if 2b) is the reason that trapping moves are not worthy of a ban then shouldn't we consider the oppurtunity cost of running arena trap mons. Running Dugtrio has a cost, it is just too low to render it unusable. (again if the only thing that had arena trap was a 1hp mon with only splash and no immunities this would clearly not be a problem as the cost of being able to trap it has no benefits)
4) Arena trap is only a problem when it removes important and significant choice for a low cost
5) 4) is dependent on the combination of an ability and a mon
6) Therefore Arena trap cannot be broken because it traps too much
What I am trying to say here really, is that this is a suspect of the wrong thing. I think Dugtrio is broken not Arena trap and I have tried to prove that by logical argumentation. I haven't gone through every psot since coming up with this criteria, but I can't think of one that did pass the test of making a coherent form of arguments a through g. If you think you have argued using one of those forms succesfully I will happily look at your argument. Also I choose PoisionousPen because he was the last user to post an argument independent of others posts.
Also not to pick on you pen, but when you say this: '-Diglett/Trapinch. They have the ability, sure, but they're not nearly as powerful of a threat as the Dugmeister over here.' you prove that what you actually think is that dugtrio needs a ban not arena trap. That is at least one user who in the current vote will explicilty be voting against dugtrio, not arena trap... I am sure there are actually many more users doing this also and don't criticise them for doing what is in there best intrest. I will however criticise the decision to target arena trap not Dugtrio.
Edit: To respond to comments asking why it matters, I would say because it affects mons in the metagame right now. If you think that arena trap makes Diglett and Trapinch 'uncompetetive' wherever they are, then you could have a discussion about those mons in time. However as the game is now there is negligble pressure to investigate those two mons for being 'uncompetetive' nor are the metagame's they occupy regularly being bemoaned as unhealthy due to their presence. Yet both of them are seeing an ability they have disapear due to people wanting rid of Dugtrio. There may be a discussion of whether Arena Trap is healthy but as I and more prominently Milky are trying to show, an argument proving Arena trap is broken has yet to appear. Not only is it a bad precedent to set that dealing with OU metagame health ought be done without fear of collateral damage to other tiers but it also muddies exactly what the issue is with trapping in an inconsitent way. In a way which could be used in the future to argue in favor of dealing with other trapping methods (for instance if magnet pull saw a huge increase in targets it could trap in OU this suspect would likely be of consideration to most voters and the organisation which would decide to suspect it). The costs to you may be low, to me they are not. However, the cost of not doing suspects of abilities like this in the future is negligble. You have to organise the same suspect, taking the same time, with the benefit of only the mon generating the issue having action taken against it.
I would like to elabourate on the comment:
"The ability 'arena trap' is uncompetetive"
To prove this:
a) You must either explain why it is traps too many things trapped in this case (percentage or raw number). Good previous posts on this idea.
b) You must explain why trapping abilities on a mon at x winrate or x effect size is a problem.
c) You must explain why there is neither a metagame that could come to exist, nor a mon that could have arena trap, that was not 'overpowered' (by whatever definition you use
d) You must beleive that trapping as an ability always is uncompetetive (probably by the old reduces skill rule)
e) You must beleive that trapping always is uncompetetive, even in the form of whirlpool and spider web.
f) You must beleive that trapping is not uncompetetive inherently, but any form of trapping with the counterplay avaliable atm in the game would always be a problem (though this is an odd argument given that the prominence of U-turn on the things trapped is a form of counterplay)
g) You must beleive that trapping is not uncompetetive inherently, but arena trap with the counterplay avaliable atm in the game would always be a problem
If there is a way to logically prove statement 1) apart from doing the above please explain it.
Now the test of how many arguments in this thread have done the above by single example:
PoisonousPen: doesn't argue against arena trap for the most part, only the compound, hence dugtrio is the problem for the most part. Where they do argue against arena trap;
"According to Smogon's rulebook, it removes player choice, and really should qualify for the textbook definition of uncompetitive." This fits the argument of Trapping always is uncompetetive, yet, I don't think that this user has issue with spiders web so it doesn't qualify for any of the above.
"-Magnet Pull and Arena Trap are not the same thing. Not only is MP much more more niche (Seriously, how many Magnet Pull users have you seen?), but it affect a much more smaller group of 'mons. (Steel-Types versus non Ghost grounded mons. The numerical difference is staggering.)". They are clearly not the same thing and this argument begins to look like argument a). However, no numbers are presented so it fails criteria a). In addition if the argument is only to be made with the number of things trapped then the user needs also to explain why trapping is only an issue at high numbers and when it is an ability; trapping moves trap more mons than both magnet pull and arena trap without being uncompetetive.
The above may seem pedantic as you would comment 'trapping moves give you a choice at least before the move is used' however I would note that pursuit does not give you a chocie, you have to take the damage if they click the move. You may comment 'trapping at the cost of a move is fine' in which case I would ask, if there were a move that could trap you before you switched for the duration that the user was in for [allowing for u-turn and shed shell as counterplay] would this move be balanced... probably not The point I am making is explaining why trapping as a move is balanced is not as simple as saying, none of the moves do what trapping abilities do, because if a move that did the above came out, you would need a new argument of why that was broken, and it would likely end up at it generates 50/50's or it traps too much for the cost of doing it. This of course begs the questions 1) would any mon with arena trap generate 50/50'? 2)is running a mon with an ability not a cost of the ability to trap? Again rendering the dugtrio arena trap compound the problem not the ability
To phrase the above in logical steps:
1)Trapping by virtue of trapping too many things cannot be the sole issue or trappping moves would be banned
2)Trapping moves are not worthy of ban because of something about them.
2)a) Because they don't remove choice on a mon of the users choice when used (as you can switch first)
2)a)i) Pursuit removes the choice of taking damage. Having to take damage is considered balanced, so the issue isn't removing player choice. If pursuit was an OHKO move, it would be banned, therefore, pursuit is balanced because it doesn't remove enough choice (losing a mon of your opponents choice).
2)b) Because they do remove choice but at too great a cost to the user to be broken. This could be the cost of them not trapping things they are good against because the opponent gets to switch out first or because using that move is too costly to the aim of winning the battle.
3a) if 2a) is the reason that trapping moves are not worthy of a ban then this applies to Arena trap. If Arena trap was on a mon that did negligble damage to things in OU it would still remove the choice to switch but the choice loss is not too great to render the ability broken. (To ad absurdum, if the only thing that had arena trap was a 1hp mon with only splash and no immunities this would clearly not be a problem)
3b) if 2b) is the reason that trapping moves are not worthy of a ban then shouldn't we consider the oppurtunity cost of running arena trap mons. Running Dugtrio has a cost, it is just too low to render it unusable. (again if the only thing that had arena trap was a 1hp mon with only splash and no immunities this would clearly not be a problem as the cost of being able to trap it has no benefits)
4) Arena trap is only a problem when it removes important and significant choice for a low cost
5) 4) is dependent on the combination of an ability and a mon
6) Therefore Arena trap cannot be broken because it traps too much
What I am trying to say here really, is that this is a suspect of the wrong thing. I think Dugtrio is broken not Arena trap and I have tried to prove that by logical argumentation. I haven't gone through every psot since coming up with this criteria, but I can't think of one that did pass the test of making a coherent form of arguments a through g. If you think you have argued using one of those forms succesfully I will happily look at your argument. Also I choose PoisionousPen because he was the last user to post an argument independent of others posts.
Also not to pick on you pen, but when you say this: '-Diglett/Trapinch. They have the ability, sure, but they're not nearly as powerful of a threat as the Dugmeister over here.' you prove that what you actually think is that dugtrio needs a ban not arena trap. That is at least one user who in the current vote will explicilty be voting against dugtrio, not arena trap... I am sure there are actually many more users doing this also and don't criticise them for doing what is in there best intrest. I will however criticise the decision to target arena trap not Dugtrio.
Edit: To respond to comments asking why it matters, I would say because it affects mons in the metagame right now. If you think that arena trap makes Diglett and Trapinch 'uncompetetive' wherever they are, then you could have a discussion about those mons in time. However as the game is now there is negligble pressure to investigate those two mons for being 'uncompetetive' nor are the metagame's they occupy regularly being bemoaned as unhealthy due to their presence. Yet both of them are seeing an ability they have disapear due to people wanting rid of Dugtrio. There may be a discussion of whether Arena Trap is healthy but as I and more prominently Milky are trying to show, an argument proving Arena trap is broken has yet to appear. Not only is it a bad precedent to set that dealing with OU metagame health ought be done without fear of collateral damage to other tiers but it also muddies exactly what the issue is with trapping in an inconsitent way. In a way which could be used in the future to argue in favor of dealing with other trapping methods (for instance if magnet pull saw a huge increase in targets it could trap in OU this suspect would likely be of consideration to most voters and the organisation which would decide to suspect it). The costs to you may be low, to me they are not. However, the cost of not doing suspects of abilities like this in the future is negligble. You have to organise the same suspect, taking the same time, with the benefit of only the mon generating the issue having action taken against it.
Last edited: