-
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!
On Banning Abilities and Ability Combinations
- Thread starter TheValkyries
- Start date
One of the advantages of a pokemon-by-pokemon testing system is that the suspects don't have to have anything in common, unlike with all these complex bans.
Thus, when you say "we would make Rain better", you're assuming that we're only going to suspect test the SwSw pokemon, when we actually wouldn't be restricted like that; we can throw in Thunderus, Tornadus, and w/e other pokemon into the suspect testing.
It could easily turn out that while Huntail and co get unbanned, Thunderus and other top non SwSw rain abusers DO get banned.
The flexibility in the pokemon-by-pokemon testing system is one of its major advantages, and definitely shouldn't be overlooked.
While this is true, there is one major disadvantage: time. While we had the time to perform said individual tests, we wanted to have as efficient a metagame as possible as quickly as possible. Had Smogon taken the time to perform each test individually, there would be a flood of "Why isn't <insert pokemon here> banned by now?" and people would just complain about how slowly progress was being made.
It is impossible to satiate everybody's desires, however, in applying this "blanket" ban, we prevented what would have been an even larger flood of complaints.
And now we have that. So where's the harm in taking as much time as we want now, to go back over the bans we made previously and straighten things out to ensure we ban and restrict only what is broken?
Yes, we did that since we didn't have time.
Now we do. (Well, unless people think testing the hax items are of SUCH high priority...)
After mulling this over a little bit, it seems like the best option is to simply ban the Pokemon instead of ability combinations. If we are using the best set(s) as reason(s) to ban certain Pokemon, then Kingdra, Ludicolo, and Kabutops should be banned outright, similarly to how Garchomp was last gen.
My understanding is that Garchomp was banned not because of it's general power as a sweeper, but also because of it's ability to set up in Sand thanks to it's ability and Substitute and Swords Dance, which was relatively easy thanks to how common Sand was last generation. Had Garchomp had a different ability, it would likely not have been banned (at least until later, similarly to how Salamence and Latias were). The ban on Blaziken is actually somewhat similar, as it is not inherently broken, but it's ability combined with certain conditions (which are easily obtainable) make it broken with few counters, but the analogy here is much more of a stretch.
The Swift Swimmers in question seem to be in the same boat to me. None of them are ban worthy on their own, but once Rain comes in, they're broken. Simply banning these Pokemon outright seems like the best option because:
It only bans Pokemon that are broken
It preserves the most strategies/movesets for the most Pokemon in OU
It doesn't change any precedence (much like the current ban does)
It is simple
Just my two cents.
My understanding is that Garchomp was banned not because of it's general power as a sweeper, but also because of it's ability to set up in Sand thanks to it's ability and Substitute and Swords Dance, which was relatively easy thanks to how common Sand was last generation. Had Garchomp had a different ability, it would likely not have been banned (at least until later, similarly to how Salamence and Latias were). The ban on Blaziken is actually somewhat similar, as it is not inherently broken, but it's ability combined with certain conditions (which are easily obtainable) make it broken with few counters, but the analogy here is much more of a stretch.
The Swift Swimmers in question seem to be in the same boat to me. None of them are ban worthy on their own, but once Rain comes in, they're broken. Simply banning these Pokemon outright seems like the best option because:
It only bans Pokemon that are broken
It preserves the most strategies/movesets for the most Pokemon in OU
It doesn't change any precedence (much like the current ban does)
It is simple
Just my two cents.
I find it interesting how people treat the Policy Review, like some sort of code of laws, when infact its just a bunch of people discussing things, no clear concensus was ever made on this issue. It was an interesting read no doubt though.
Now considering this a few interesting points where brought up, that I would of never even considered, what make a pokemon an altenate form? All the rotom forms, in gen 4 where essentailly the same outside of there moves, all the Doexys forms have the same moves as does shaymin. So why can't an ability, be a different form? Blaze-Blaziken act very diferently then Speed Boost-Blaziken.
Now I would also like to go against this slippery slope arguement. As I have said tiering is diferent from banning. Thats why we have the BL "tier," which is essentailly a banlist. Now if the SB-Blaziken form was banned, the B-Blaziken form would be fine.
Now considering this, lets go back to that Magenzone arguement we had, Magnezone from that start is OU, so no matter what its form it would still be OU. It not going to go to UU becuase for some ability, because that adds an unnessisary level of complexity. So you don't have dozens of pokemon with 3 diferent forms, is a variety of tiers. You start out with a pokemon in a tier it is being tested in, and ban from there.
While on the other hand, if you start out with a pokemon made for UU, lets say for example Kingler, and we found Sheer Force-Kingler to be to good for UU, then ban it to UU to BL. Now is it just me, or do I not see a slippery slope there at all. At the maximum, for have a few pokemon which there alternate abilities go on a banlist, remember this has nothing to do with tiering but banning.
I think that the disinction needs to be made that we are not tiering pokemon, no thats the job of the simulator, but banning pokemon, or there forms as needed. Uber and BL are banlists first, tiers second, now if your against that please start something for a banlist for OU, as opposed to Uber, but as you people say that adds on unnessisary complexity.
Now considering this a few interesting points where brought up, that I would of never even considered, what make a pokemon an altenate form? All the rotom forms, in gen 4 where essentailly the same outside of there moves, all the Doexys forms have the same moves as does shaymin. So why can't an ability, be a different form? Blaze-Blaziken act very diferently then Speed Boost-Blaziken.
Now I would also like to go against this slippery slope arguement. As I have said tiering is diferent from banning. Thats why we have the BL "tier," which is essentailly a banlist. Now if the SB-Blaziken form was banned, the B-Blaziken form would be fine.
Now considering this, lets go back to that Magenzone arguement we had, Magnezone from that start is OU, so no matter what its form it would still be OU. It not going to go to UU becuase for some ability, because that adds an unnessisary level of complexity. So you don't have dozens of pokemon with 3 diferent forms, is a variety of tiers. You start out with a pokemon in a tier it is being tested in, and ban from there.
While on the other hand, if you start out with a pokemon made for UU, lets say for example Kingler, and we found Sheer Force-Kingler to be to good for UU, then ban it to UU to BL. Now is it just me, or do I not see a slippery slope there at all. At the maximum, for have a few pokemon which there alternate abilities go on a banlist, remember this has nothing to do with tiering but banning.
I think that the disinction needs to be made that we are not tiering pokemon, no thats the job of the simulator, but banning pokemon, or there forms as needed. Uber and BL are banlists first, tiers second, now if your against that please start something for a banlist for OU, as opposed to Uber, but as you people say that adds on unnessisary complexity.
Except for Sky Forme Shaymin in a unanimous vote! Everybody hates paralysis + flinching! *Glares at Jirachi and Togekiss* :)
Anyway, I'd reluctantly have to side with the people who would ban Blaziken period for "official" stuff, because it would save a lot of hassle for other Pokemon such as endless Sand Veil and Snow Cloak debates. I'd allow opponents to use Blaze Blaziken against me on my Wifi matches, though. The real test comes when Shadow Tag Chandelure is released!
This is strange, but I voted Never, though I realized that I should have voted in the "When the Ability or Combination breaks all Pokémon that have it"
However, this thing of banning Blaziken because of Speed Boost or whatever is simply silly- this would mean that Ninjask should have been uber/banned since gen 3. Yet, it's not that active even with Speed Boost in the current metagame. I think that there needs to be some sort of consistency, or stop banning stuff because people complain about it. Now, I've agreed with some of the bans, such as inconsistent and the obvious Ubers (Reshiram, Zerkrom, ect.) but a ban like Blaziken + SB is one of those things that seems to be a nitpick of a ban rather than justified, or at least its the least justified ban of all of the ones that have occurred so far. But either way, we need to make sure that something is 100% broken before it's banned. Ubers, with their super high stats are and should be in their own tier, stuff like inconsistent is dangerous for the game since it is true luck based, Swift Swim + Drizzle, I think there's a risk of over centralizing the game, but not worth a ban, but it's just getting a bit silly, and this Blaziken ban is a prime example of the standards for a ban getting worse and worse.
edit- if all forms of blaziken, not just the Speed Boost version being banned is completely ridiculous, ban the move/ability, not all other forms of the pokemon.
However, this thing of banning Blaziken because of Speed Boost or whatever is simply silly- this would mean that Ninjask should have been uber/banned since gen 3. Yet, it's not that active even with Speed Boost in the current metagame. I think that there needs to be some sort of consistency, or stop banning stuff because people complain about it. Now, I've agreed with some of the bans, such as inconsistent and the obvious Ubers (Reshiram, Zerkrom, ect.) but a ban like Blaziken + SB is one of those things that seems to be a nitpick of a ban rather than justified, or at least its the least justified ban of all of the ones that have occurred so far. But either way, we need to make sure that something is 100% broken before it's banned. Ubers, with their super high stats are and should be in their own tier, stuff like inconsistent is dangerous for the game since it is true luck based, Swift Swim + Drizzle, I think there's a risk of over centralizing the game, but not worth a ban, but it's just getting a bit silly, and this Blaziken ban is a prime example of the standards for a ban getting worse and worse.
edit- if all forms of blaziken, not just the Speed Boost version being banned is completely ridiculous, ban the move/ability, not all other forms of the pokemon.
Uh. . .Ninjask isn't that powerful. It has poor coverage even with the help of Swords Dance. Besides, it's a predictable Baton Passer that many people associate only with newer players, and some Pokemon in this generation can set up easily without its help.
Blaziken, on the other hand, has the power and the coverage, it just needs that extra Speed.
Well, they allowed Giratina-O in VGC 2010 even though you could only use HGSS carts on it, and the only way to get a Griseous Orb was in that Sinjoh Ruins event, and the only way to get there was... having a non-D/P Arceus in your party. You should know that, being unnecessarily nitpicky all the time and such.
...Well yeah, I completely forgot the other Rain abusers, you do have a point.
Yes, makes perfect sense. But, as I said, people weren't much willing to ban those three instead of Drizzle... It may be possible now, but we'd need a separate ladder or something; people wouldn't want to face SwSw Gorebyss/Carracosta/Omastar in Round 4, I'm sure of it.
...But now that I think of it, allowing those pokémon would make Blaziken less broken, maybe...?
The fact it would only make Drizzle stronger, when it already had like 35% of the voters wanting to ban it, shows to me people would rather have a blanket ban then even giving anything new to Drizzle.
Fair enough, my mistake again.
Drizzle had 59% of votes in Round 1, and it became a much more prominent threat in Round 2. If ensoriki/Aldaron/Pocket hadn't made their proposals, Drizzle would have been banned before you could say "Mewtwo".
I agree with both sentences so I have nothing to add.
Do note I don't think setting up a Suspect ladder would necessarily be a waste of time, I'm saying what seems to be the general sentiment regarding the issue. And yes, removing certain bans may be a waste of time if the negative aspects outweigh the positive ones; to begin with, *what if* we end up with a metagame as "effective" as the current one, but with Drizzle being even better? You may say it isn't close to being now, but even then, we had 1/3 of the voter base saying it was broken already; allowing the lesser Swimmers may *tick* people off balance, and even bring back the anti-Drizzle sentiment we had in Round 2 (even if it were to be allowed in a separate ladder only); and of course, there are the borderline guys, such as Gorebyss and Carracosta, which brings me back to my ~7 pokémon and the broken team arguments.
Again, I would be willing to have a Suspect ladder to test Drizzle, but what about the majority? Why try to improve Drizzle when it's powerful enough already? Why do we have this complex ban again? Why can't I use Kingdra? Why don't we just ban Kingdra outright? Why don't we just ban Drizzle again...? We're in a weird situation where we had a blanket ban because we didn't have time, we have to let people still get used to weather wars, and then tell them we're going to "waste time" testing something they wanted banned at first when they're finally used to the weather wars idea. I can see it working, but just not now.
I find that the "fit" we have is not related to the "unnecessary bans", but to the nature of the ban itself; until we have official, set-in-stone policy regarding complex bans of any nature, and make it clear to newcomers why we felt the Drizle+SwSw ban was necessary as it is now, we'll have random people suggesting weird combo bans "just because" and more experienced members arguing back and forth about even more controversial combo bans. I do not find we're about to have our community split into two but still, it's a matter I find we should settle as early as possible.
I don't want to dwell into this ability argument too much (I'm sure other people will), but most importantly, what differentiated them back in DPPt (besides we not having these kinds of arguments) was that each move was connected to a sprite, meaning while they were all "Rotom-App", you would know what move to expect from it (and maybe get bluffed in the process).
Then again, they all have different stats and sprites, and both Shaymin even have different abilities/typing.
It may seem silly, but you forgot one of the most important things in different formes: the sprite. I can tell the forme I'm facing by its sprite. I know it's a "Rotom-App" with the possibility of knowing Overheat, or a Grass/Flying read to fuck my shit, or a fast as hell Psychic-type lead, all of this thanks to their sprites; that's why Zoroark is so effective, even with Team Preview. I'd say having one sprite for every Blaziken has a much more psychological effect than what you people take into account, as their only difference is the ability, nothing else. They're not different pokémon, they are just... variations, but not as clear as variations as Shaymin and Skymin, or Rotom and Rotom-App. Ehhh I don't know how to explain it much so I'll stop here.
Why, if what makes Magnezone OU is arguably Magnet Pull? From what you say, I could understand you wouldn't even suggest banning SB Blaziken if it were its original ability, and only now had it gotten Blaze.
Again, no pokémon is entitled to no tier (well, except for Arceus I guess???); if Sheer Force Kingler existed before the current ones (lol I don't even know its abilities, shame on me), you would be against doing what you now suggest; "having been here first" isn't an acceptable argument, as that would mean, in example, we wouldn't even have "given a chance" to Drizzle and banned it outright.
Any tier works as a banlist to the tier right below it (if we had a BL metagame, all OU/Uber pokémon would be banned); allowing Sturdy/Analytic Zone in UU while Magnet Pull Zone is OU essentially means you are banning Magnet Pull Zone from UU (if you'd rather, "making it BL and let it all by itself up there"), as it's the only "forme" unallowed. "But Magnezone shouldn't be in UU!" why? Magneton fares well in DPPt UU, and we know BW UU will look quite... weird, what with Metagross and Lucario and Flygon killing shit down there. Hell, Inner Focus Dragonite would be acceptable in UU by usage alone, see what BW UU would look like?
Again, the only reason Blaziken is a "special case" is because it was a strong pokémon with a glaring weakness, and then Game Freak remedied it and made it too big a monster, resulting into it being banned to Ubers. However, the same thing happens with many other pokémon when you ignore the "who came first" argument, as it does not matter when we talk about tiering. Early Platinum analysis would never acknowledge the changes brought by Platinum were brought by that specific game, but rather would talk about as if they were there since the beginning of the generation. Why? Because what matters is how the pokémon fares with its new toys, not how it was before. Blaziken was UU and became Uber because of a new addition, and yet no one talks about, say, Shell Smash Cloyster, Drought Ninetales or Imposter Ditto. Ban only those "formes" from UU/NU and you have those pokémon back to those tiers again. They should be there, they were there to begin with, right? It also works the other way; Heracross was OU in ADV/DP and isn't since late DPPt, clearly something is wrong and we should do something about it, as it should be OU, right?
Ok that's enough.
Most rifts settle over time. They never completely go away, but this seems larger than usual.
As you didn't object, I made the poll. It should give us an idea of just how big the rift is.
You can't necessarily extrapolate that.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it was right.
As I've said before, while I take issue with the circumstances that caused Aldaron's proposal to be suggested in the first place, I believe it was a perfectly fine temporary solution. I'm not concerned with the past, just the future.
Then we need to have more official polls and make a decision.
We don't know what the majority thinks, and we need to find out.
Are you saying waiting even longer would be a better solution?
Indeed, that is one more matter which must be settled immediately. We're about two months overdue for a decision in PR about what Aldaron's proposal means regarding future bans, and we desperately need such a decision.
This is an impossible argument to make. UU/OU is strictly defined by useage, not power level. If a UU pokemon finds a large enough niche in OU play, it moves up. If an OU pokemon's gimmick ends up being countered too much and it never gets used, it'll move down. There's no power level at play here - it's straight statistics.
Fair enough.
I didn't mean it was right, but it seems it was a good enough reason to me; by no means the best, but it was that or a Drizzle ban.
Well, now that we have the poll, we can see what the community truly thinks of the ban and work from there.
UU/OU is defined by usage, while UU/BL is defined by power level, and both are banlists for UU. What I'm saying is that, in example, mind you, if it weren't for Magnet Pull, Magnezone would probably be UU since D/P (and Magneton NU in ADV???); if it had gotten Magnet Pull now, it would have risen to OU and an argument could have been made for only Magnet Pull Magnezone to be banned of UU, either directly ("it was perfectly fine without it before, ban MP Zone and let Analytic/Sturdy Zone thrive"), or indirectly ("well, now Magnezone is OU, but why don't we allow the lesser versions in UU? They're underused in OU, after all, and were fine last gen!").
See the similarity to the current argument? It's based on who came first, ability X or ability Y; if we don't accept this argument in any other situation (new moves for old pokémon, and even new generations), why should we accept it regarding abilities? A pokémon doesn't "begin" in a certain tier except for the "blatant Ubers" and, even then, we had to decide what would the initial banlist be comprised of. If we decide SB Blaziken and Blaze Blaziken are different forms, then we should do the same to other pokémon with multiple abilities if they make the pokémon jump or fall a tier or two, because no pokémon is special, so they should have the same treatment.
One, I didn't object because I never saw anyone ask to make a poll. Or if someone did, they asked when I was asleep/at work.
That being said, there are more sides to this than your poll leads it to believe which is why I don't believe it as huge a rift as you think. There are multiple problems people have, that being that "No" in your poll encompasses a wide array of opinions. It covers "I think we should only ban certain Swift Swimmers with Drizzle", " I think weather should be banned because all of it is broken this gen" and " I disagree with the premise of complex bans in general". You have 3 widely differing opinions under one wide banner, and frankly that isn't putting things in the right view.
And that's part of the beauty of tiering (or rather, the struggle of it.) There is no one right answer to what tiers/banlists create a balanced metagame. There is more than one way to make a proper tier list, and neither answer is more right or more wrong.
That being said, there are more sides to this than your poll leads it to believe which is why I don't believe it as huge a rift as you think. There are multiple problems people have, that being that "No" in your poll encompasses a wide array of opinions. It covers "I think we should only ban certain Swift Swimmers with Drizzle", " I think weather should be banned because all of it is broken this gen" and " I disagree with the premise of complex bans in general". You have 3 widely differing opinions under one wide banner, and frankly that isn't putting things in the right view.
And that's part of the beauty of tiering (or rather, the struggle of it.) There is no one right answer to what tiers/banlists create a balanced metagame. There is more than one way to make a proper tier list, and neither answer is more right or more wrong.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3425497&postcount=179
You then responded to the later part of that post. Not that that's an issue now, since it's clear that the poll wasn't a problem.
My poll isn't meant to indicate all of those sides as being in favor of any one side. My poll is simply meant to indicate a rift. Some people want one thing, some people want another thing, some people want a third thing, and none of the sides can get a majority of support. What that means is that it's time to recognize that there's an issue here and start addressing and testing alternatives in order to see if we can find a solution that will satisfy people.
You say there's no one right way to make a proper tier list? That sounds like the exact opposite of the philosophy of last gen. In Gen 4, we figured out what Pokemon were broken, and we banned them. No complex bans, no ability bans, nothing like that. We didn't run into issues like this then, because there were at most two real sides to any given issue, and therefore one would have at least half the community in favor of it. At least, that's what the philosophy was. There were occasional issues that had to be handled differently, much like how Moody had to be handled differently this gen, because it defined a Pokemon more than the Pokemon itself. But Swift Swim is not so different. The only thing that differentiates it from Chlorophyll and Drought is the Pokemon that have it, and therefore it is the Pokemon that must be addressed.
This involves parsing all the pokemon whose abilities make them OU (And suspect testing to see if that's the case - Does Overcoat reuniclus belong in UU?), and then testing to see if they're too powerful for the other tiers. This is a very lengthy and involved process. I do not believe that this is a high enough priority to be worked on at this time.
Yes, and that's why we shouldn't do it, and why I don't believe we should even bother with Blaze Blaziken.
I think Blaze Blaziken deserves a special mention, as only one optiona aspect makes it "broken", not "usable". Again, Magnet Pull didn't break magnezone to the point where it had to be OU so as not to disrupt the UU metagame, it just provided a good, solid niche where it was good enough to see play with the big boys. I speak on this issue because as I've said a few times, I love to play Rain Dish Ludicolo, and I don't want to be denied using it in Drizzle conditions just because of an aspect on it that I'm not even utilizing. Sure, some pokemon are good for only one ability, and I would find it completely unecessary to sort through every pokemon and determine it's usage per ability, ect. But when it comes to banning a pokemon outright(or to Ubers, I guess), alternative options for lesser pokes should be considered. If Kyogre had another ability than Drizzle, unless it was also of the same power level(and proven such), I think it'd be fair to let the lesser Kyogre see standard play, because the factors that make it broken aren't in place. To me, that's what is important (and please, don't quote me on that, it was just an example. Don't take it too literally). You don't need to go through all the OU pokemon and sort them by ability. But offering ubers that have been neutered of their broken qualities should be far from a difficult request.
Isn't that why pokemon have multiple variants, anyway? Because one poke can sometimes have many uses, and just because one happens to be broken and abused, does this really justify the prohibitation of each other variant?
Isn't that why pokemon have multiple variants, anyway? Because one poke can sometimes have many uses, and just because one happens to be broken and abused, does this really justify the prohibitation of each other variant?
After much thought about this issue, I have begun to realize that your right, pokemon with different abilities, aren’t different forms, due to similar typing, stats, moves, and even sprites. But that has not changed my view on the subject. After much thought, I believe is better to present a pokemon as a package, being put together of many things, but all in the same box as one pokemon. Now if a package gets to heavy to hold, you can toss a few items out, sure you can throw out some packing foam (moves) but they are messy and stick to your hands, and in the end its not that worth it. Now its not like if a box gets to heavy you rip it in 2 and take the other half and throw it out, nor do you toss the whole thing in the Garbage. No you take a few items out, to make it manageable.
What I am getting at is a pokemon is one thing, you don’t split it apart into different tiers, but if necessary you throw out a few broken abilities, because far less people play the ban lists then tiers. So its much better to get rid of bad abilities on some pokemon, then to toss the whole box in the garbage.
Now a pokemon is characterized by what abiltie(s) are its best abilities, because as you have said under current Smogon policy, Magnezone is better then everything else in OU, and has no place there. The distinction comes into banlists vs. tiers. Yes, everything in OU and BL is banned from UU, but BL is just too good for UU, while OU is statically better and used more. While that may not seem like a bit difference, it is infact is if you consider this whole process I am talking about. Gallade isn’t used at all really in OU last gen, but it was UU ban worthy, while if you played Tentacruel in UU, it might not break the UU metagame.
For example, you start out with 2 pokemon in the UU tiers based on usage, in the fifth generation - Kingler and Nidoqueen:
Now Kingler is a piece of shit in OU, but in UU is wrecks, so much so that its found to be banable, but only because of sheer force. Now they decide to ban Sheer Force Kingler from UU, but not the other 2 forms, now the other 2 might not be all the good, in fact they might slip down to NU, but that’s irrelevant, because now in NU people can still use it.
Now Nidoqueen somehow gets a nice niche in OU, and because of Smogon statistics it goes to OU, even if its not broken in UU. Similar to how Umbreon was OU at the end of the last generation, even though it was never broken in UU. Now we don’t care about people complaining that they want Poison Point Nidoqueen back in UU, because in OU people are playing with it, and in the end that’s all the matters. And besides, sheer force Nidoqueen, is the best.
Now the key thing is here, Nidoqueen is being used in OU, and Kingler is being used in UU/NU. While under the current way to approach pokemon with possibly banable abilities, only Nidoqueen would be used and Kinglet being stuck unusable in BL. And I don’t see anything wrong, or even complex with presenting pokemon as packages, and tossing out the bad ability.
The point I guess I am trying to make, is that if a pokemon can be tiered in such a way that it will get used, and its not totally insane. Like for example banning half of Mewtwo’s move pool, or making it level 85. Otherwise precautions should be made to make sure it is used, instead of having a pokemon in a ban list, making all use of the pokemon obsolete. I would rather have Blaziken, merked to UU, then no one use it in Uber. And don’t tell me it will be used, like Salamence last gen, that double dragon dance Rayquazza piece of shit, which was the biggest piece of propaganda I have ever seen a pokemon site use. And if something is totally broken, like lets say Doexys-S or Latias, possibly this gen, you can not make them OU or UU worthy without screwing them up considerably then, and I am not for that at all. A bad ability is like slicing off a bad appendix, but if someone has radiation poisoning, you can’t fix them.
What I am getting at is a pokemon is one thing, you don’t split it apart into different tiers, but if necessary you throw out a few broken abilities, because far less people play the ban lists then tiers. So its much better to get rid of bad abilities on some pokemon, then to toss the whole box in the garbage.
Now a pokemon is characterized by what abiltie(s) are its best abilities, because as you have said under current Smogon policy, Magnezone is better then everything else in OU, and has no place there. The distinction comes into banlists vs. tiers. Yes, everything in OU and BL is banned from UU, but BL is just too good for UU, while OU is statically better and used more. While that may not seem like a bit difference, it is infact is if you consider this whole process I am talking about. Gallade isn’t used at all really in OU last gen, but it was UU ban worthy, while if you played Tentacruel in UU, it might not break the UU metagame.
For example, you start out with 2 pokemon in the UU tiers based on usage, in the fifth generation - Kingler and Nidoqueen:
Now Kingler is a piece of shit in OU, but in UU is wrecks, so much so that its found to be banable, but only because of sheer force. Now they decide to ban Sheer Force Kingler from UU, but not the other 2 forms, now the other 2 might not be all the good, in fact they might slip down to NU, but that’s irrelevant, because now in NU people can still use it.
Now Nidoqueen somehow gets a nice niche in OU, and because of Smogon statistics it goes to OU, even if its not broken in UU. Similar to how Umbreon was OU at the end of the last generation, even though it was never broken in UU. Now we don’t care about people complaining that they want Poison Point Nidoqueen back in UU, because in OU people are playing with it, and in the end that’s all the matters. And besides, sheer force Nidoqueen, is the best.
Now the key thing is here, Nidoqueen is being used in OU, and Kingler is being used in UU/NU. While under the current way to approach pokemon with possibly banable abilities, only Nidoqueen would be used and Kinglet being stuck unusable in BL. And I don’t see anything wrong, or even complex with presenting pokemon as packages, and tossing out the bad ability.
The point I guess I am trying to make, is that if a pokemon can be tiered in such a way that it will get used, and its not totally insane. Like for example banning half of Mewtwo’s move pool, or making it level 85. Otherwise precautions should be made to make sure it is used, instead of having a pokemon in a ban list, making all use of the pokemon obsolete. I would rather have Blaziken, merked to UU, then no one use it in Uber. And don’t tell me it will be used, like Salamence last gen, that double dragon dance Rayquazza piece of shit, which was the biggest piece of propaganda I have ever seen a pokemon site use. And if something is totally broken, like lets say Doexys-S or Latias, possibly this gen, you can not make them OU or UU worthy without screwing them up considerably then, and I am not for that at all. A bad ability is like slicing off a bad appendix, but if someone has radiation poisoning, you can’t fix them.
This is exactly the point I would like to get across. It's readily apparent there is no definably correct answer to this situation at the moment, but the several polls that have popped up suggest the current answer doesn't hit the mark either. There are multiple problems here, as RBG suggested, and a rather obvious rift that has formed shouldn't simply be ignored. This isn't a simple yes/no rift, it's a very dynamic one. We should react accordingly with new ideas that can appeal to a broader range of people. Keep trying until we get something that carves a clear majority within the community, not just the policy voters.