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.The main problem here is that we should have tested Swift Swim more thoroughly and banned only the broken trio and worked from there, but... we didn't have time. Drizzle would be banned and we'd be in a much worse situation to do anything. Now, Drizzle is still thought to be broken by some but, for the majority, it's fine nowadays. Proposing to lift the Drizzle+SwSw ban and try to test the Swimmers and see what makes which of them broken, though, even in a Suspect Ladder, would mean that we would make Rain better, either by having more diversity in sweepers, or by having even stronger sweepers (as if Rain needed any of them lol). The complex ban saved Drizzle from being banned "with no reason" but, at the same time, has put us in a weird situation where anything we do will be deemed a "waste of time" by both the anti- and the pro-Drizzle camps, as we'll put a Ladder and test things and discuss and argue and propose funny bans and see metagame shifts and analyze usage stats only to, in the end... make Rain better or, at least, end up with a metagame as effective as the current one. So, what would the point be?
It's difficult to tell the numbers, although a community poll would give us some idea of the scope. I assume that wouldn't violate some rule about topics being discussed?I'm not seeing a huge rift, just a rather vocal and persistent (not that being persistent is a bad thing) minority.
Edit: Not sure if it counts as an event, but Soul Dew is in Pokemon Battle Revolution.
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.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.
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?While this is true, there is one magor 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.
Yes, we did that since we didn't have time.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.
Thorhammer: No matter what decision Smogon makes, there is some sort of "rift", since we never all agree (well, rarely).
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.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.
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.The reason that Soul Dew is banned by Game Freak is that it is an event item. In Gen III it was only available on Southern Island, and in Generation IV, it was the Enigma Crystal. Same reason that Phione is banned.
...Well yeah, I completely forgot the other Rain abusers, you do have a point.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.
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.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.
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.There isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support this.
Fair enough, my mistake again.Also, bear in mind that it's not ~7 Pokemon; it's 3-7 Pokemon.
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".We had all the time we wanted. We just chose not to use it, and for no good reason.
I agree with both sentences so I have nothing to add.What we should have done was address each broken sweeper individually, exactly as we've always done in the past, so that we wouldn't run into this disaster of overly broad bans. But arguing about what we should have done in the past won't get us anywhere now.
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.Right now, the way to proceed is to improve the metagame. Some people are claiming that that would be a waste of time, because they're willing to accept a metagame containing unnecessary bans, but that is an explicit violation of Smogon's policy. Removing unnecessary bans is never a waste of time. Yes, it will make rain better. But that's not an issue, as rain isn't close to being broken in the current metagame, and if any Swift Swim user is deemed not broken, then it will mean that it, too, does not make rain broken.
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.But besides the effect on the metagame, does it really seem to you as if we can simply leave things like this? Is this a healthy state for Smogon and its community to be in, one where a highly controversial and unprecedented ban leaves a huge rift in the community that remains over two months later, and shows no sign of disappearing? If nothing else, would you consider settling that to be a waste of time?
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).All the rotom forms, in gen 4 where essentailly the same outside of there moves
Then again, they all have different stats and sprites, and both Shaymin even have different abilities/typing.all the Doexys forms have the same moves as does shaymin
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.So why can't an ability, be a different form? Blaze-Blaziken act very diferently then Speed Boost-Blaziken.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
Most rifts settle over time. They never completely go away, but this seems larger than usual.Thorhammer: No matter what decision Smogon makes, there is some sort of "rift", since we never all agree (well, rarely).
Edit: So my new sig can be seen by all!
You can't necessarily extrapolate that.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.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean it was right.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".
Then we need to have more official polls and make a decision.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.
We don't know what the majority thinks, and we need to find out.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Fair enough.You can't necessarily extrapolate that.
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.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.
Well, now that we have the poll, we can see what the community truly thinks of the ban and work from there.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.
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!").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.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3425497&postcount=179One, 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.
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.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.
Yes, and that's why we shouldn't do it, and why I don't believe we should even bother with Blaze Blaziken.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.
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.http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3425497&postcount=179
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.