I'm not saying just start down the list slowly banning everything. I'm saying every month, ban the top three in usage for the next month, and bring down the three banned the previous month. This allows us to see how removing certain pokemon affects the metagame, and whether the metagame would be better off without them. Currently, there's no way of knowing.
-
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 Bans
- Thread starter Scorpio
- Start date
- Status
Is there one, unmoveable truth behind Smogon's philosophy on the metagame? Like, for example:
"The inherent good of Pokemon being the ability to choose from a diverse lot, we should be implementing many bans until what is considered 'standard' includes as many Pokemon as possible."
Or:
"The inherent good of Pokemon being freedom of selection, almost no Pokemon should be banned except what monopolizes the players' choices and effectively restricts them to an extremely limited few."
These are just examples, and I haven't thought on this subject enough to care strongly one way or the other (not since the Wobbuffet debates in Gen IV), but does Smogon have something like a mission statement that represents the foundation of its views on how the metagame should be governed? Not that having one would satisfy 100% of the players or eliminate every problem, but having an essential belief about how the metagame should function would at least make us argue a little more objectively and minimize the arguments to a more statistical level (for example, if the second quoted line above was chosen as the pivotal philosophy, players would only have to prove that a Pokemon was monopolizing the playing field to ban it, rather than do that AND question whether that was a legitimate reason to ban something).
I realize that "we need a founding philosophy" is kind of obvious and probably very trite, but I think if we got all our arguments out about what that fundamental belief should be, making decisions on all the individual ban-dilemmas to come would be so much easier.
"The inherent good of Pokemon being the ability to choose from a diverse lot, we should be implementing many bans until what is considered 'standard' includes as many Pokemon as possible."
Or:
"The inherent good of Pokemon being freedom of selection, almost no Pokemon should be banned except what monopolizes the players' choices and effectively restricts them to an extremely limited few."
These are just examples, and I haven't thought on this subject enough to care strongly one way or the other (not since the Wobbuffet debates in Gen IV), but does Smogon have something like a mission statement that represents the foundation of its views on how the metagame should be governed? Not that having one would satisfy 100% of the players or eliminate every problem, but having an essential belief about how the metagame should function would at least make us argue a little more objectively and minimize the arguments to a more statistical level (for example, if the second quoted line above was chosen as the pivotal philosophy, players would only have to prove that a Pokemon was monopolizing the playing field to ban it, rather than do that AND question whether that was a legitimate reason to ban something).
I realize that "we need a founding philosophy" is kind of obvious and probably very trite, but I think if we got all our arguments out about what that fundamental belief should be, making decisions on all the individual ban-dilemmas to come would be so much easier.
I don't see the point in debating philosophies and fundamental principles when we could be getting actual business done. And if we went by your second mission statement (the basis of the argument of over-centralization) then Excadrill and Latios would've been banned already because of the usage their counters have, just sayin.'
Edit: @Shinyskarm If we shook up the metagame that often it'd never settle. I don't think temporarily banning three pokemon once a month without proving they're broken in any way helps the meta at all. Why ban the top 3 every month and then look back and decide if they're broken? The only real selling point I see in your idea is that there would actually be a legitimate way to ban Magikarp.
We do have one. Here it is:
Most people here have probably read this already, but for those new to the site, here's the link to the article so you'll know it's legit.Smogon's Banning Thing said:
Now, it's obvious that not everyone will agree with this. But given that it's its own page of the site, I think we can call it "official".
-----
I personally abhor complex bans of any kind, and think we should stick to simple/blanket bans. I tolerate Aldaron's Proposal because I think it handled the problem pretty well, although I still dislike it.
o wait do i have to give reasons for thinking so?
PS- unban brightpower/lax incense
It's way to much of a hassle to change what's banned every month. It completely throws away any stability in the metagame. Just because something is popular doesn't make it overpowered. In Gen IV for example, Scizor was very common but was actually pretty easy to counter (HP Fire Magnezone says hello). I get what you're saying about "not knowing how something affects the metagame". It would be an interesting experiment, but we should only be concerned if the metagame becomes broken (I.E. the only way to take out Pokemon Y is through dumb luck) or WAY overcentralized (I.E. 90% of teams have Pokemon X).
I have a question that I would like to pose about ability bans. By the current definition, an ability is only considered broken if every individual with the ability is considered broken. In any other circumstace where an ability breaks a pokemon, the pokemon is simply banned. Considering this, I would like to pose two hypothetical scenarios. Imagine if magikarp received moody from the dream world. Magikarp is weak and frail, and cannot use sub and protect to gather boosts. It is unfathomable that moody would break magikarp. Due to the definition of a broken ability, moody would no longer be a broken ability. Does the hypothetical addition of magikarp to the list of moody users diminish moody's power to break pokemon like octillary and smeargle? The answer is no. Just because one user of the abiltiy sucks does not make the ability itself not broken. In the same vein, consider every offensive pokemon in OU. With the exception of Conkeldurr and Reuniclus, speed boost has the potential to break each offensive threat in OU. If a scenario such as this, what would be done? Would the ability be banned, despite its nonbroken users, or would every broken pokemon with it receive the boot? Granted, the above scenarios are completely hypothetical, but I hope this can show that an ability can be broken without every user of the ability being broken.
^This is why we can't use DrizzleToed and SwSw Luvdisc together, even though Luvdisc is the poster "weak" Pokemon. I feel like SwSw Luvdisc would not terrorize the metagame, but our other option is banning Kingdra, Kabutops, Ludicolo, etc. through individual testing.
As a general rule, when we're talking about "every Pokemon", we're talking about Pokemon with standard TM access and a fairly normal movepool, i.e., not Magikarp or Caterpie. This may be a little arbitrary, but it is clear that there are some Pokemon (Magikarp, Unown, the baby bugs, etc.) on whom no existing ability would be broken due to unusually restricted or gimicky movepools. That doesn't mean that ability shouldn't be banned.
Similarly, Speed Boost is not broken on the vast majority of Pokemon, even the vast majority in OU. In addition to your examples, such OU staples as Scizor, Tyranitar, Blissey and Jellicent, among others, would prefer their current (generally quite useful but obviously not broken) abilities to Speed Boost. And even for OU Pokemon that would prefer Speed Boost to their current abilities, like Metagross or Volcarona, it is not immediately obvious that they would be broken with Speed Boost, just more powerful.*
*Although Speed Boost Metagross sounds kind of scary. Lucario and Haxorus are other OU mons that might be broken with Speed Boost. There aren't too many others. (Perhaps Hydreigon? Dragonite?)
@ Cuiv
The moody post was moreso meant to ask where the arbitary line is drawn when it comes to abilities being banned. This leads to the speed boost question (which I probably should have expounded upon more to avoid confusion). I said that offensive pokemon would gain the most from speed boost, so not pokemon like Jellicent and Blissy. Granted, some offensive threats wouldnt be better off with speed boost (i.e. Scizor). My main point was, however, if we saw Volcarona, Metagross, Haxorous, Lucario, Thunderous, etc. with speed boost, what would happen? Speed boost yanma learns tms and is not broken, therefore speed boost is not broken, according to the current definition. At the same time, this singular ability has the power to break the aforementioned pokemon. Because speed boost is not broken by definition, the only remaining option is an avalanche of bans. Simply put, an ability can be broken without all of its users being broken.
The moody post was moreso meant to ask where the arbitary line is drawn when it comes to abilities being banned. This leads to the speed boost question (which I probably should have expounded upon more to avoid confusion). I said that offensive pokemon would gain the most from speed boost, so not pokemon like Jellicent and Blissy. Granted, some offensive threats wouldnt be better off with speed boost (i.e. Scizor). My main point was, however, if we saw Volcarona, Metagross, Haxorous, Lucario, Thunderous, etc. with speed boost, what would happen? Speed boost yanma learns tms and is not broken, therefore speed boost is not broken, according to the current definition. At the same time, this singular ability has the power to break the aforementioned pokemon. Because speed boost is not broken by definition, the only remaining option is an avalanche of bans. Simply put, an ability can be broken without all of its users being broken.
Almost no one would count Magikarp. As Cuiv said, it has the limited move access that GF sometimes gives out (no i dont mean "bad movepool" i mean like no tms and like 3 level up moves). Also, "lol magikarp". Moody Karp is like Wonder Guard Shedinja; WG would be broken on almost anything else that got it, but due to extenuating circumstances (1 HP), it's not. I hope that makes sense, the way I explained it.
Technically, yes, but it would at the very least have to break an over-whelming majority of its users. Let's say, hypothetically, that all the Pokemon you mentioned got Speed Boost. It would probably break several of them, but they're fully evolved Pokemon with awesome stats. If it broke their prevos too, or Pokemon with bad stats too, or Pokemon with shitty typing too, then it might be worth considering a ban, but...
I feel like the simplest route is that, if a Pokemon is considered to strong under any circumstances, then it, in it's entirety, should be banned. Even if it's just one component of the Pokemon. Other wise, you end up with nerfed mons filtering into the lower tiers.
Just throwing in my two cents about Blaziken:
Many users seem to base their arguments about this Pokemon around whether it's one of their favorites or not. In order to avoid a Pokemon + Ability ban, we proceeded to ban all of Blaziken due to Blaze Blaziken being rather repetitive and unnecessary (three other Fire / Fighting Blaze users). However, we as a community need to decide whether we want to ban the entire Pokemon or just the ability that breaks it. Because while the fix we installed for Blaziken works for now, what would happen in situations like...
Huge Power Haxorus? Magic Guard Ferrothorn? Drizzle Vaporeon? Wonder Guard X?
Sure, those probably aren't the best examples (just think of an OU Pokemon and break it). But when we have things like Technician Breloom and Shadow Tag Chandelure sitting on our doorstep, we need to arrive at a final verdict. Do we ban the entire Pokemon? Or the ability and Pokemon combination? Methinks the choice is rather obvious. Haxorus does just fine in OU while Huge Power Haxorus would be preposterously unfair. So why not increase OU's diversity by retaining as many viable Pokemon as we can?
Just food for thought.
Many users seem to base their arguments about this Pokemon around whether it's one of their favorites or not. In order to avoid a Pokemon + Ability ban, we proceeded to ban all of Blaziken due to Blaze Blaziken being rather repetitive and unnecessary (three other Fire / Fighting Blaze users). However, we as a community need to decide whether we want to ban the entire Pokemon or just the ability that breaks it. Because while the fix we installed for Blaziken works for now, what would happen in situations like...
Huge Power Haxorus? Magic Guard Ferrothorn? Drizzle Vaporeon? Wonder Guard X?
Sure, those probably aren't the best examples (just think of an OU Pokemon and break it). But when we have things like Technician Breloom and Shadow Tag Chandelure sitting on our doorstep, we need to arrive at a final verdict. Do we ban the entire Pokemon? Or the ability and Pokemon combination? Methinks the choice is rather obvious. Haxorus does just fine in OU while Huge Power Haxorus would be preposterously unfair. So why not increase OU's diversity by retaining as many viable Pokemon as we can?
Just food for thought.
I like you. I honestly think that blaze nor chomp, nor weather, nor any ability combo should be banned. But people should be looking to keep OU as big of a selection as possible. Honestly, imo the only thing that should be banned is the cover legends, and pokes thad people call the creme ala creme of uber. Like mewtwo, and hardcore stuff like that.
That is a horrible criteria for banning a poke. Let's say, you have a mascot legendary with slow start, would you still ban it? Or how about truant?
I disagree with this, because pokemon are constantly upgraded - choosing to ignore these upgrades would be essentially playing a different game. You can drive a Civic with or without power locks, but at the end of the day, it is still a Civic.
If Haxorus were somehow given Huge Power and became broken, it would be banished entirely, otherwise the floodgates open and we have specific rules regarding each of the 600+ pokemon in existence. We can't isolate the various components of a pokemon just because we want to - it is a package deal. "Blaziken" is merely a single name applied to the particular combination of possible moves, abilities, typing, and base stats that comprise it, and the same is true of any other pokemon.
The only time I would support the banning of anything other than a pokemon itself (ie an item, move, or ability ban) is when the aspect in question is guaranteed to be broken on every pokemon that has it and every pokemon in the future that may receive it. This is where Moody and OHKO clauses come in, as well as the Soul Dew clause (since every pokemon that derives benefit from it becomes broken).
I'm honestly surprised this thread made it beyond the first page.
Anyways, I've played 5th Gen OU for a long while, and though there are some bans I don't agree with, OU is still fair and balanced.
I have recently been enjoying GBU rules battling. A place where for the most part, event only Pokemon and base 600+ game mascot Pokes are banned (+Chatot/-Regigigas). Anything else goes, but with Item and Species clauses intact.
Even in that battling format, everything is balanced (imo). Blaziken=not broken. Garchomp=not broken. Swift Swim+Drizzle=not broken. Lack of Sleep and Evasion clauses=not broken. Keeping all of those balances everything out just fine, and doesn't leave a player being quite as limited to what they can use.
We need a 6v6 tier that otherwise uses GBU rules for battling.
I say leave OU Standard with as few bans as possible.
Anyways, I've played 5th Gen OU for a long while, and though there are some bans I don't agree with, OU is still fair and balanced.
I have recently been enjoying GBU rules battling. A place where for the most part, event only Pokemon and base 600+ game mascot Pokes are banned (+Chatot/-Regigigas). Anything else goes, but with Item and Species clauses intact.
Even in that battling format, everything is balanced (imo). Blaziken=not broken. Garchomp=not broken. Swift Swim+Drizzle=not broken. Lack of Sleep and Evasion clauses=not broken. Keeping all of those balances everything out just fine, and doesn't leave a player being quite as limited to what they can use.
We need a 6v6 tier that otherwise uses GBU rules for battling.
I say leave OU Standard with as few bans as possible.
This is actually my basic train of thought regarding Ability + Pokemon bans. If, and only if, the Pokemon in question performs acceptably in OU with an ability other than the one breaking it, then the Pokemon + ability ban goes into effect. Chandelure will probably be an example of this (I know this is probably the third time I've used Chandy as an example, but it really is a good example), as is Blaziken, or even Garchomp if it isn't broken with Rough Skin.
And now my next question is why I didn't think of this earlier.
P.S: Technician Breloom isn't actually that big a threat, at least compared to ST Chandy.
For the man that says that Chandelure ST will not be banned... are you serious? LOL
It's so obvious that Chandelure will be banned! All top pokémon in smogon metagame (Ferrothorn, Scizor, Gliscor, Gengar, Skarmory, Thundurus, Jirachi, Conkeldurr, Starmie, etc) are easily defeated by Chandelure scarf, if the players of smogon doesn't ban Chandelure Shadow Tag, all of us will need to play a new metagame.
For me, Chandelure ST in OU can be very good. Some teams extreme offensive with him can work amazing (dragons + chandelure = gg), but i'm sure that the majority of players will ban him. hmm
It's so obvious that Chandelure will be banned! All top pokémon in smogon metagame (Ferrothorn, Scizor, Gliscor, Gengar, Skarmory, Thundurus, Jirachi, Conkeldurr, Starmie, etc) are easily defeated by Chandelure scarf, if the players of smogon doesn't ban Chandelure Shadow Tag, all of us will need to play a new metagame.
For me, Chandelure ST in OU can be very good. Some teams extreme offensive with him can work amazing (dragons + chandelure = gg), but i'm sure that the majority of players will ban him. hmm
Tyranitar with pursuit says hi.
That's a revenge kill. And Tyranitar might sustain a burn depending on how Chandelure just knocked something out.
I don't think I'm following your debate very well... But from what I understand, you're saying (basically) that, "Abilities don't change a Pokemon," and, "Pokemon are constantly changing so we would have to as well." Correct?
Well for the first statement, I don't see how abilities couldn't not change an individual Pokemon (TRIPLE NEGATIVE WHOOO). Take Bronzong for example. Sure, it has all the great defensive tools it needs with either ability, like awesome typing and a good movepool, but its list of checks and counters changes drastically when you switch its ability from Levitate to Heatproof. Although they are the same Pokemon, they are played differently.
Same applies for Blaziken, Chandelure, and Breloom. Even though they are the same Pokemon with their alternate abilities, they function quite differently than they do with their other abilities. SB Blaziken abuses Protect and Swords Dance, ST Chandelure can decimate many threats through revenge trapping, and Techniloom uses an entirely different movepool sans Spore. They are the same Pokemon through aesthetics, BST, and movepool, but their abilities allow them to function in an entirely different manner. So Blaze Blaziken and SB Blaziken are not the same Pokemon competitively. And that's what Smogon aims to do: battle Pokemon competitively.
In terms of your second statement, the world of Pokemon may be changing more rapidly than ever through the Dream World, but we can predict those changes. We know of all possible Dream World abilities and can discuss them as we are now. And if new movesets come about, we would deal with them through Suspect Rounds. I don't see how the Dream World complicates anything in that regard. Smogon is still going to run Suspect Rounds no matter which venue we choose, so I can't see it harming us further.
On the whole, I respect your ideas a lot and do see a lot of validity in them. As we can tell from the poll, Smogon seems to be split quite evenly on which option they prefer. It is quite the pickle we are in.
Go read this, por favor.
Personnaly, I would ban the pokémon that is broken. If Blaziken got banned because speed boost and new moves, then Kingdra should be banned too, but not drizzle. Because no one will ever use Kingdra outside of rain. If we banned drizzle because it makes sweepers too powerfull, why not ban sandstorm and then Garchomp is no longer uber?
No, my stance is basically that pokemon will undoubtedly have access to more options as new games come out, but that does not make it a different pokemon.
Regarding your comparison to Bronzong, I consider it rather invalid in this case because most, if not all, pokemon present in OU are in fact capable of more than one niche role. You wouldn't say Scizor running SD is a different pokemon than CB Scizor merely because of a moveset change - it is simply utilizing a different combination of options available to it. Just because they are played differently does not mean they should be considered entirely separate entities, otherwise we would have the means to effectively unban Kyogre and other Ubers on the condition that it only use Water Pulse or what have you.
As for the Dream World, I am with you entirely - it is just another means of expanding the options a pokemon has available to it, such as the introduction of breeding in Gen 2 and move tutors in Gen 3. The only difference is that this time, it grants pokemon new abilities rather than new moves. If ST Chandelure proves broken (and I mean truly broken, not "it makes the current top 10 less viable" like that one guy was claiming), Chandelure itself needs to be banned. We have to remember that Chandelure would only be broken with the combination of its stats, typing, and ability. Sure, we could ameliorate this with a Shadow Tag ban, but not everything with ST is broken. Also, we could place an arbitrary EV cap on Chandelure, or limit the moves it can run in conjuction with the ability. Any of the three scenarios is basically nerfing the pokemon to keep it viable in OU, which I heavily disagree with (see: current Drizzle situation).
Without evasion clause, I'm of the opinion that the metagame would be totally broken. Even Sand Veil Garchomp in Gen IV, who (compared to multiple Double Teams/ Minimizes) was fairly easy to hit, got banned because he forced both sides to rely too much on luck. As a metagame, we should be trying to remove luck from the metagame (to a reasonable extent). If everything is running around using Double Team, all of a sudden the metagame just becomes "who hits who first", as opposed to actual strategy.
As for Blazekin, I don't exactly see why Blaze variants should be banned since it's not broken at all, and I think it differentiates itself just enough from Emboar and Infernape. It wasn't exactly taking the metagame by storm, and personally I'm not a huge fan, but I don't see the harm in letting people use it if they really want to.
- Status