On Banning Abilities and Ability Combinations

[TheValkyries]

I know this subject has been rehashed in so many different ways, and people are probably getting tired of all the talk, but this is a question that I feel needs to be addressed before we go further, as it was never clarified by any PR post that I have seen. The question is this: When should calling for Ability Bans and Ability Combination Bans be appropriate? I think this is what defines the talks of what should or should not be banned right now, but because no one's defined it, the talks continue to spiral into meaninglessness, while no good solution is found.

I am of the opinion that we should only resort to bans such as these is to save us the formality of banning each individual Pokémon who has the Ability. This follows the premise that for an Ability to be truly broken, they must make every Pokémon who has it broken. That way, it's a convenient time saver, that also maximizes what is possible in the meta-game. This upholds the essence of our new Smogon Philosophy of achieving and maintaining a stable and healthy meta-game.

Granted, I can see the arguments for being able to call for them at any other time, be it to ban multiple things at once in general, or to simply call for it in place of a Pokémon ban at any time, as we do have the option to so it shouldn't be counted out. However, I am vehemently opposed to these ideologies, as it fosters this mindset that we can ban things that aren't broken simply for convenience's sake, or for the fact that they're only exceptions to the rule. I am opposed for the simple reason that we simply cannot say, "Everything with Ability x or Ability Combination y is broken, except for the exceptions, which we'll still ban anyways for good measure." There is just no logic behind such a ban, and it takes away from the possible diversity of the meta-game.

I'd just like some input from the rest of the community on this, because it's critical in deciding how we should move on.



PLEASE NOTE: While this line of discussion does concern the Drizzle and Drizzle+Swift Swim ban talks, this discussion is not focused on them. So as a warning, do not start debating them in this thread.

 

[Lamppost]

I really don't know what i think about this subject. I don't like the idea of breaking down a pokemon until they're ou viable. In some cases i do think that it's better to just ban an ability, but i don't think we should do it for every uber pokemon. Also i don't think that you should have to ban the ability on every single pokemon, you should only have to ban it on the certain mon that it is broken with.

 

[Darkamber8828]

Ability combinations?

Elaborate.

What about "when abilities (or combinations) overly centralize/break metagames by violating Offensive/Defensive/Support Clauses?

 

[Acritter]

Ability combinations?

Elaborate.

What about "when abilities (or combinations) overly centralize/break metagames by violating Offensive/Defensive/Support Clauses?

Drizzle+Swift Swim is what he's talking about, and I suppose a case could be made for Truant+Shadow Tag (Truant Durant copies its ability onto the enemy Pokemon, Chandelure with Shadow Tag and Protect switches in, CMs up to +6, sweeps).

I personally voted for #2 because #1 isn't always true (sometimes the problem is simply the Pokemon, not the ability, such as with Skymin) and #3 doesn't allow for an ability that is amazing but has a horrible user of it (see Shadow Tag Wynaut: nobody can call THAT broken, but that doesn't mean the ability isn't overpowered on Wobbo, Chandelure, and Gothy). #2 isn't perfect, because if only a couple of Pokemon abuse it they can just be banned to keep things simple, but if it hits numbers of 3+ broken 'mons, we have a problem with the ability, not the Pokemon.

Also, bad poll. It needs an option for "never" and possibly for "only under exceptional circumstances". I'm not really in favor of either, but they're legitimate opinions.

 

[Benlisted]

Yeah, I'd vote never personally - or only if that were the only available practical option, for reasons I've made clear in other threads.

Edit - essentially, unless it is very clearly the ability that is broken alone (not the case with Drizzle as it is so hard to define a weather itself as broken when it has so many attributes), it should not be banned, and instead the pokemon itself as the combination of the ability, moveset, stats and typing should be banned.

Inconsistent was banned not because it was broken, but because it was overall detrimental to the metagame, a different type of ban to normal which it seems to me is more similar to a clause like evasion.

 

[Zebstrika]

I think abilities should be banned when everything becomes broken, because many pokemon may have awesome abilities but suck too much. For example, if Arena Trap is found to be broken, we should not ban Trapinch, because it's rather frail and too slow to outspeed any non-stall pokemon with a scarf. But if something like Hippowdon got it for a DW ability, we could ban only DW Hippo if it is said to be broken.

 

[Aldaron]

Never should probably be an option in this poll.

 

[Nanoswine]

Abilities should only be banned if every Pokemon that has that ability is broken with it, and if it has an alternate ability it is not broken with that ability. Specific Ability + Pokemon combinations should never be banned. For instance, when we banned Inconsistent, every Pokemon that had it was broken, and without it they were not. But we can't just go and ban "Intimidate on Mence" just to nerf it and keep it OU.

 

[RotatingAtom]

Certain abilities can be broken in pretty much the same way certain Pokemon can be. Therefore, the option to ban them should exist.

As an example that probably every battler is aware of: Sand Veil.
I am sorry if banning Sand Veil means that Garchomp will stay out of OU as long as he is not available with his Dream World ability, but the fact that Sand Veil in itself brings an unnecessary amount of luck to the table means that it should at least be considered for a ban discussion.

 

[Blatreutka]

I don't have a problem banning abilities, but I don't think banning combinations is a good idea. The two shouldn't be considered in the same sense as they are drastically different.

 

[theangryscientist]

Abilities should be bannable if they are broken, but banning combinations of abilities just gets too complicated.

 

[Green Thunder]

Why is "never" not an option?

 

[TheValkyries]

Never should probably be an option in this poll.

As we have already have banned an ability, I figured putting "never" as an option to be a moot point. However, if I could change the poll, I would, now that multiple people have expressed the desire.

 

[Ninja-persian]

I think that no ability by itself in the game is broken, and yes, the pokemon who by the ability receives powerful benefits from it. Would drizzle, shadow tag or sand stream without the pokemons that benefit from it be broken? Would people argue and complain about banning swift swim or shadow tag if the only pokemon who had it were weaker pokemon such as anorith and wynaut, respectively? So, if we ban the "abusers" that get gigantic benefits from these abilities, these abilities would not be considered "broken", and also, other weaker and less viable pokemon can still receive the benefits from the abilities they have.

 

[idiotfrommars]

I am seconding or thirding the desire for a never option in this poll, as that is what I would pick and obviously it is not there.

 

[eric the espeon]

Poll ignores the complexity of the issue, not just by neglecting a major option in "Never" as others have stated, but by grouping all forms of broken together (broken as too powerful/centralizing and broken as reduces the skill basedness of the metagame to an unacceptable degree), and ignoring all forms of middle ground (if it breaks a large majority of the Pokemon, not "all"). I've taken a shot at covering more of the issue in detail here.

 

[ensoriki]

If a large portion of pokemon of are broken because of a combination then the combination should be restricted or banned. If a small portion of pokemon are broken then the combination should not be banned and the pokemon that are explicitly broken in the combination are what should be banned.

Do things as we must, not simply because we feel to on a whim.

 

[TM13IceBeam]

Uh, its so obviously when all the people with said ability is broken. You don't ban Luvdisc simply because it has Swift Swim, which even with Drizzle doesn't improve him.

Also, as others have stated before, there isn't a 'never' option. It's like walking to a person and say "Do you want tea? Yes, yes or yes?"

 

[TheValkyries]

Ok, enough about the imaginary "never" option. What an utterly useless and pedantic complaint to make considering we've already banned an ability thus far, and Phil himself has given the okay to such policy. Frankly, I would have chosen the never option as well, if it actually were an option. Suffice to say, the point is entirely moot and does not merit further discussion. Unless you mean to suggest that the best course of action right now is to completely overturn a policy decision that has already gone through, and by extension unbanning all things that were banned using said policy. If you were suggesting such a thing, this entire thread would never even have been made. Policy as it stands dictates that the possibility of banning ability exists, so this poll sets out to decide when resorting to such policy is necessary. Voting "never" would solve literally nothing to the problems we are experiencing right now and is counter-intuitive to the original nature and intent of this poll. Whether or not we should ban abilities is an entirely different discussion then the one I'm attempting to present, which is about how we should proceed with what we've been given.

Consider my offer to create a "Never" option in this poll were I to have the ability, rescinded.

 

[Blatreutka]

Ok, enough about the imaginary "never" option. What an utterly useless and pedantic complaint to make considering we've already banned an ability thus far, and Phil himself has given the okay to such policy. Frankly, I would have chosen the never option as well, if it actually were an option. Suffice to say, the point is entirely moot and does not merit further discussion. Unless you mean to suggest that the best course of action right now is to completely overturn a policy decision that has already gone through, and by extension unbanning all things that were banned using said policy. If you were suggesting such a thing, this entire thread would never even have been made. Policy as it stands dictates that the possibility of banning ability exists, so this poll sets out to decide when resorting to such policy is necessary. Voting "never" would solve literally nothing to the problems we are experiencing right now and is counter-intuitive to the original nature and intent of this poll. Whether or not we should ban abilities is an entirely different discussion then the one I'm attempting to present, which is about how we should proceed with what we've been given.

Consider my offer to create a "Never" option in this poll were I to have the ability, rescinded.

Being policy doesn't stop people from believing and voting for something. Also, there are many people who believe that banning combinations of abilities should never happen, which has not been set in stone (I think).

 

[TheValkyries]

Whether or not we should ban abilities is an entirely different discussion then the one I'm attempting to present, which is about how we should proceed with what we've been given.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself. If it wasn't clear before, the point of this thread should be clear now.

 

[windwolf777]

Never is my opinion

 

[Gneiss is nice]

I personally don't think it's a good idea.

I mean, if you start with "Garchomp's fine but Sand Veil on Garchomp is banned" (for example), then where do you end? "This pokemon with this ability but not THIS ability and not these two moves together but with this move and this move together and..." is a bit too much, I think.

I think that it opens up too much potential for even more complex bands, which get really...complex.

 

[Sajak]

If the ability (or abilities) make the Pokemon broken or involve too much hax, then yes they should be banned. Drizzle clearly made Swift Swim users OP, and Moody created too much hax.

 

[Woodchuck]

I think that the number of options on the poll are a bit limited.
"When the Ability or Combination breaks an entire playstyle" should be an option.