It feels weird saying it, but I have to agree with Pocket. It is not completely out of your control. You can change to the weather, you can use never-miss moves. On top of that, we should be banning what is broken, and clearly it is not. 1/5 chance for a miss on pokemon that are not extremely threatening (at least in OU) is no where never game breaking.
-
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!
Evasion Clause Discussion Topic
- Thread starter JabbaTheGriffin
- Start date
- Status
I'm a bit late, but echoing the statements of those who are in favor of complex banning evasion clause. Yes it gets our hands dirty, but it solves so many problems.
It satisfies:
-Users who want to ban evasion boosting abilities
-Users who want to preserve those abilities due to the fact that some Pokemon only have that as their primary ability.
It could stop users from being cheesed by Sand Veil or Snow cloak as well. Garchomp gets a second at BW OU since Sand Veil was the one thing that pushed it over the edge.
(As an aside this will be extremely relevant down the line when Garchomp is released with Rough Skin. A complex ban of Sand Veil + SS would still allow us to use Garchomp on sand teams. Just not with Sand Veil.)
It satisfies:
-Users who want to ban evasion boosting abilities
-Users who want to preserve those abilities due to the fact that some Pokemon only have that as their primary ability.
It could stop users from being cheesed by Sand Veil or Snow cloak as well. Garchomp gets a second at BW OU since Sand Veil was the one thing that pushed it over the edge.
(As an aside this will be extremely relevant down the line when Garchomp is released with Rough Skin. A complex ban of Sand Veil + SS would still allow us to use Garchomp on sand teams. Just not with Sand Veil.)
Stratos
Banned deucer.
I disagree with implementing any new bans because no matter what we do, we do end up softbanning completely legitimate and absolutely nonbroken team combinations.
Here's an illustration: let's say I want to use Sandslash as a spinner on my UU sand team. Broken? Oh god no. Banned? If we implement this clause, yes.
we were fine with doing this with Drizzle + SwSw because it was to avoid many full bans of Pokemon such as Kabutops. But this is a different story. I don't want to softban team combos made for purposes absolutely unrelated to Sand Veil abuse for what is the essence of whining about hax. nothing is broken here, and i don't want anything caught in the crossfire that doesn't need to go.
Here's an illustration: let's say I want to use Sandslash as a spinner on my UU sand team. Broken? Oh god no. Banned? If we implement this clause, yes.
we were fine with doing this with Drizzle + SwSw because it was to avoid many full bans of Pokemon such as Kabutops. But this is a different story. I don't want to softban team combos made for purposes absolutely unrelated to Sand Veil abuse for what is the essence of whining about hax. nothing is broken here, and i don't want anything caught in the crossfire that doesn't need to go.
Alright, now to make a post where I am not fatigue muddled. I apologize for the somewhat condescending nature of my previous posts and for implying anyone was "bitching". Still my opinion stands, but now I'm going to make a better argument as to why I care about this topic at all when I continue to assert it doesn't even matter.
Last night (well technically this morning), in my hazy state of mind, I only really made one half of my argument as to why we should just leave things as they are. The half of the argument I made is that it has such a tiny influence on the metagame that it is not really worth even worrying about, let alone banning. As 2sly4u posted, while using a team that had a Sand Viel abusing Gliscor on it, it only played a role in the outcome of 4% of battles. And he was using it too, meaning that the abuser was present in all of those battles. Now take that 4%, and put it into the percentage of times that a sand viel/snow cloak Pokemon are even in battle. I can't imagine that the percentage battles where a snow cloak/ sand viel pokemon are even on one of the teams exceeds 4% itself. So we're not talking 4% of battles here, we're talking 4% of 4% of battles, which works out to 16 battles in every TEN THOUSAND where this actually comes into play. You do realize how ridiculously small a percentage that is right?
But I can now, in my now well rested mind, see the counter argument; "Jimera, if it's so inconsequential, why do you even care?". The reason why it matters to me is because if we were to implement a ban, even a complex one, the impact of the ban would be greater than the impact of the thing we're banning in the first place. Essentially, you'd be causing harm in the name of solving a statistically insignificant problem.
For example, let's take a look at the lowest impact ban avaible for eliminating Snow Cloak and Sand Veil hax from the game. Froslass is the best example for this, as of the Pokemon with these abilties, she will undoubtedly be the one most impacted, primarily because she is almost exclusively used on hail teams. This isn't just for snow cloak abuse mind you; no, she's used primarily for her other attributes such as her powerful Blizzard and ability to Spin Block and and lay hazards at the same time. But suddenly because of this ban, she will hardly be used at all. Froslasses' usage in OU is 0.8%, which is quite small.. until you compare it to the calculated figure above of 0.016% of games that are currently affected by Snow Warning and Sand Veil.
My point here is that I think people should be allowed to make their hail and sand teams with these Pokemon on them, especially when the impact their ability being activated has is so incredibly minor. I don't believe we should be limiting team building any more than is necessary, as any limits on team building hamper creativity and diversity. Bans should only be put in place when the offender is severely affecting the metagame in an adverse way, and this is not the case with Sand Veil and Snow Cloak.
And this isn't even taking into account the precedent creation argument Pocket made, which I think is an important one to make as well. We should not be ok with banning things based on the principle of them rather than the effect they actually have. While I don't necessarily believe that banning this will guarantee we suddenly start banning all sorts of things just because they don't conform to our ideal image of the game, I don't think it'd be healthy to put an example of us doing so out there.
As for the items, as I said I don't care whether they are banned or not. Unlike the complex ban, their ban doesn't hamper team building at all or even move set building since they're so interchangeable with other items. While I see no need for them to have been banned in the first place, I see no particular need to unban them either. Honestly, I couldn't give much less of a damn about them.
So, in short, the effects that making these bans would have on team building and set creativity outweigh the extremely minor impact their presence has on the metagame. As such, we should not ban them.
Last night (well technically this morning), in my hazy state of mind, I only really made one half of my argument as to why we should just leave things as they are. The half of the argument I made is that it has such a tiny influence on the metagame that it is not really worth even worrying about, let alone banning. As 2sly4u posted, while using a team that had a Sand Viel abusing Gliscor on it, it only played a role in the outcome of 4% of battles. And he was using it too, meaning that the abuser was present in all of those battles. Now take that 4%, and put it into the percentage of times that a sand viel/snow cloak Pokemon are even in battle. I can't imagine that the percentage battles where a snow cloak/ sand viel pokemon are even on one of the teams exceeds 4% itself. So we're not talking 4% of battles here, we're talking 4% of 4% of battles, which works out to 16 battles in every TEN THOUSAND where this actually comes into play. You do realize how ridiculously small a percentage that is right?
But I can now, in my now well rested mind, see the counter argument; "Jimera, if it's so inconsequential, why do you even care?". The reason why it matters to me is because if we were to implement a ban, even a complex one, the impact of the ban would be greater than the impact of the thing we're banning in the first place. Essentially, you'd be causing harm in the name of solving a statistically insignificant problem.
For example, let's take a look at the lowest impact ban avaible for eliminating Snow Cloak and Sand Veil hax from the game. Froslass is the best example for this, as of the Pokemon with these abilties, she will undoubtedly be the one most impacted, primarily because she is almost exclusively used on hail teams. This isn't just for snow cloak abuse mind you; no, she's used primarily for her other attributes such as her powerful Blizzard and ability to Spin Block and and lay hazards at the same time. But suddenly because of this ban, she will hardly be used at all. Froslasses' usage in OU is 0.8%, which is quite small.. until you compare it to the calculated figure above of 0.016% of games that are currently affected by Snow Warning and Sand Veil.
My point here is that I think people should be allowed to make their hail and sand teams with these Pokemon on them, especially when the impact their ability being activated has is so incredibly minor. I don't believe we should be limiting team building any more than is necessary, as any limits on team building hamper creativity and diversity. Bans should only be put in place when the offender is severely affecting the metagame in an adverse way, and this is not the case with Sand Veil and Snow Cloak.
And this isn't even taking into account the precedent creation argument Pocket made, which I think is an important one to make as well. We should not be ok with banning things based on the principle of them rather than the effect they actually have. While I don't necessarily believe that banning this will guarantee we suddenly start banning all sorts of things just because they don't conform to our ideal image of the game, I don't think it'd be healthy to put an example of us doing so out there.
As for the items, as I said I don't care whether they are banned or not. Unlike the complex ban, their ban doesn't hamper team building at all or even move set building since they're so interchangeable with other items. While I see no need for them to have been banned in the first place, I see no particular need to unban them either. Honestly, I couldn't give much less of a damn about them.
So, in short, the effects that making these bans would have on team building and set creativity outweigh the extremely minor impact their presence has on the metagame. As such, we should not ban them.
What no one seems to be addressing on the anti-complex ban side is why my opponent should get to choose how accurate my moves are? Basically it's defeating the whole purpose of why someone chooses Flamethrower over Fire Blast or Thunderbolt over Thunder.
It's not really an argument whether evasion is breaking these Pokemon or not it's why we wouldn't remove something that's uncompetitive when doing so has almost no negative consequences and many positive attributes. Wouldn't it be great knowing when you choose Flamethrower over Fire Blast specifically because of it's 100% accuracy that it will always have 100% accuracy?
It's not really an argument whether evasion is breaking these Pokemon or not it's why we wouldn't remove something that's uncompetitive when doing so has almost no negative consequences and many positive attributes. Wouldn't it be great knowing when you choose Flamethrower over Fire Blast specifically because of it's 100% accuracy that it will always have 100% accuracy?
About the luck based items:
If I read correctly, Lax Incense has a 5% percent chance of missing. Oh shit! That's like Charge Beam. It's not game changing at all. Heck, you'll have a higher chance of statusing an opponent with one of those 100% hit 90 power moves. Now look at Brightpowder. 10%. Same chance to status an opponent with that Flamethrower. If that's counted as very game changing, why not just have a test period with Lax Incense available? My guess is no one will be using it.
About unbanning Double Team/Minimize:
Minimize Blissey. Just no.
About the abilities:
Snow Cloak: Let's see, the ones that aren't mediocre are Mamoswine and Froslass. Mamoswine isn't used just for Snow Cloak. In fact, I dare say most Mamoswines are used for revenging Dragons, not for Evading Attacks. Besides, Skarmory completely walls it. Froslass getting 1 more layer of spikes isn't too bad. This isn't pre-hail Ban UU. There are legit spinners.
Sand Veil: Only Gliscor occasionally uses this. Never faced one, so I won't say anything.
tl;dr: Unban Lax Incense to test the results, then if it isn't so bad, release Brightpowder as well. Don't unban the moves. I have no idea about Sand Veil but Snow Cloak is fine.
If I read correctly, Lax Incense has a 5% percent chance of missing. Oh shit! That's like Charge Beam. It's not game changing at all. Heck, you'll have a higher chance of statusing an opponent with one of those 100% hit 90 power moves. Now look at Brightpowder. 10%. Same chance to status an opponent with that Flamethrower. If that's counted as very game changing, why not just have a test period with Lax Incense available? My guess is no one will be using it.
About unbanning Double Team/Minimize:
Minimize Blissey. Just no.
About the abilities:
Snow Cloak: Let's see, the ones that aren't mediocre are Mamoswine and Froslass. Mamoswine isn't used just for Snow Cloak. In fact, I dare say most Mamoswines are used for revenging Dragons, not for Evading Attacks. Besides, Skarmory completely walls it. Froslass getting 1 more layer of spikes isn't too bad. This isn't pre-hail Ban UU. There are legit spinners.
Sand Veil: Only Gliscor occasionally uses this. Never faced one, so I won't say anything.
tl;dr: Unban Lax Incense to test the results, then if it isn't so bad, release Brightpowder as well. Don't unban the moves. I have no idea about Sand Veil but Snow Cloak is fine.
I know I'm not really a known name in the community, but I feel like dropping my statement regardless.
I'm completely against a ban of evasion.
My reasoning is as follows:
Let's take SubSD Terrakion with Brightpowder as item. Your counter to it is a Band Mienshao, using HJK as attack for the OHKO. The accuracy has now dropped from 90% to 81%. This means that over the course of 4 substitutes (which are needed to fish for misses), the amount of misses increases by roughly 0.04 in comparison to an itemless Terrakion. Take a leftovers Terrakion, able to make 5 subs, and you actually outperform Brightpowder in the case of 90% or less accurate moves.
This example extends to the general case. If stuff wants a free turn, it can already fish for misses on non-100% accurate moves, or use paralysis support, or any of the other ways to abuse hax.
Commonly heard arguments are
1: it's uncounterable while all other strategies are counterable
2: it requires no skill to execute, and we want skill to prevail over luck.
To 1, I have to say that Machamp and Aura Sphere Lucario are very sad. Apart from that, I'm very eager to learn what can /reliably/ counter paraflinchfusion, IE Jirachi, Togekiss and Dnite spreading paralysis and in the former 2 cases flinching.
To 2: Do you want to ban 4Drag2Mag, too? It takes very little skill to execute, and it can take down well built teams. Or again, parafusionflinch? Or Volt-turn? Any decently built volt-turn team can defeat many a team by setting up rocks and from there on just click Volt-turn with the occassional Hydro Pump, Superpower or HP Fire to deal with those pesky steels and grounds. Regardless of the low skill there, I don't think Volt-Turn as a strategy needs to be banned, either.
One more point:
In the philosophy it states that as little as possible should be banned. As annoying as Evasion may be, I don't think it is OP, and as such, it shouldn't be banned. If you think it is OP, prove me wrong. Unban evasion in all ways, (Garchomp still banned because there was way more to it than sand veil), and storm the ladder with the teams. I'll be waiting.
I'm completely against a ban of evasion.
My reasoning is as follows:
Let's take SubSD Terrakion with Brightpowder as item. Your counter to it is a Band Mienshao, using HJK as attack for the OHKO. The accuracy has now dropped from 90% to 81%. This means that over the course of 4 substitutes (which are needed to fish for misses), the amount of misses increases by roughly 0.04 in comparison to an itemless Terrakion. Take a leftovers Terrakion, able to make 5 subs, and you actually outperform Brightpowder in the case of 90% or less accurate moves.
This example extends to the general case. If stuff wants a free turn, it can already fish for misses on non-100% accurate moves, or use paralysis support, or any of the other ways to abuse hax.
Commonly heard arguments are
1: it's uncounterable while all other strategies are counterable
2: it requires no skill to execute, and we want skill to prevail over luck.
To 1, I have to say that Machamp and Aura Sphere Lucario are very sad. Apart from that, I'm very eager to learn what can /reliably/ counter paraflinchfusion, IE Jirachi, Togekiss and Dnite spreading paralysis and in the former 2 cases flinching.
To 2: Do you want to ban 4Drag2Mag, too? It takes very little skill to execute, and it can take down well built teams. Or again, parafusionflinch? Or Volt-turn? Any decently built volt-turn team can defeat many a team by setting up rocks and from there on just click Volt-turn with the occassional Hydro Pump, Superpower or HP Fire to deal with those pesky steels and grounds. Regardless of the low skill there, I don't think Volt-Turn as a strategy needs to be banned, either.
One more point:
In the philosophy it states that as little as possible should be banned. As annoying as Evasion may be, I don't think it is OP, and as such, it shouldn't be banned. If you think it is OP, prove me wrong. Unban evasion in all ways, (Garchomp still banned because there was way more to it than sand veil), and storm the ladder with the teams. I'll be waiting.
I support the complex ban with Weather/respective evasive ability.
Some Pokemon are just not broken with the abilities, and several will be banned despite their shortcomings, just like how Bidoof is banned from Ubers for Moody and Magikarp and Feebas are banned from certain OU teams (as if anyone would use these anyway). However, with the luck, it's just too game-changing when you get that one miss in battle that causes you to lose. All due to one ability being abused intentionally. Alone, the abilities are useless, and if using one, you'd consider yourself lucky to face a team using just the right weather (just like how some anti-weather teams use Kingdra's Swift Swim).
The items definitely should not be unbanned. They're practically useless with some Pokemon but as we all know, even 5% or 10% chance is too much. If you're meant to win, shouldn't it be 100% chance of victory with skill, not 90% due to luck?
Anything else that can boost evasion is so difficult to pull off, that no one bothers. Just putting that in before someone starts about Tangled Feet, Acupressure, etc.
Some Pokemon are just not broken with the abilities, and several will be banned despite their shortcomings, just like how Bidoof is banned from Ubers for Moody and Magikarp and Feebas are banned from certain OU teams (as if anyone would use these anyway). However, with the luck, it's just too game-changing when you get that one miss in battle that causes you to lose. All due to one ability being abused intentionally. Alone, the abilities are useless, and if using one, you'd consider yourself lucky to face a team using just the right weather (just like how some anti-weather teams use Kingdra's Swift Swim).
The items definitely should not be unbanned. They're practically useless with some Pokemon but as we all know, even 5% or 10% chance is too much. If you're meant to win, shouldn't it be 100% chance of victory with skill, not 90% due to luck?
Anything else that can boost evasion is so difficult to pull off, that no one bothers. Just putting that in before someone starts about Tangled Feet, Acupressure, etc.
No 100% skill victory will ever exist due to crits and damage rolls. And don't mention use sub before every attack to prevent these. Half the time you'll sub and get destroyed until you run out of hp without blocking a single crit. Well, besides D-nite.
I'm seeing too many cases of people comparing luck in the form of evasion to luck in the form of critical hits and damage rolls. These need to stop, they don't contribute anything. Critical hits and damage rolls are very different from evasion; it is impossible to deal with these things with bans.
On the other hand, there is something we can do about the evasion abilities, unlike critical hits. Also, users of Sand Veil/Snow Cloak frequently use Substitute to fish for misses, which makes evasion easy to abuse, which is another reason why I support the complex ban on Weather ability + Evasion ability.
On the other hand, there is something we can do about the evasion abilities, unlike critical hits. Also, users of Sand Veil/Snow Cloak frequently use Substitute to fish for misses, which makes evasion easy to abuse, which is another reason why I support the complex ban on Weather ability + Evasion ability.
Frequently as in only the very rare Hail teams that barely have any good abusers and the rare SV Gliscor? Yea, let's temporarily ban Froslass and limit several other pokemon's movepools just so we don't have to deal with Mamoswine or SV Gliscor getting a single free turn. God forbid they actually contribute something to a team.
The complex ban is a joke. These pokemon can't even abuse the miss very well. The most you'll ever get is a lucky kill every now and then because they're not large threats. They're such SMALL threats that they can't even guarantee anything at all with that single free turn unlike Garchomp(who we already got rid of) who could sweep your team.
Also, I think you should ALL remember that Snow Cloak absolutely REQUIRES the use of Abomasnow. Since when is Hail such a large threat with snow cloak to warrant such a thing? Hell, since when is SV Gliscor such a threat that you feel the need to ban it?
Alright, it's starting to look to me like people are arguing to ban this not based on how much it actually affects the metagame a whole, but how it affects an individual game, or how the concept of what's supposed to be 100% accurate might not be.
And to this I have to say, seriously people. You want a ban for something that that only actually comes into play in around 0.02% of battles? You're willing to further weaken hail as a playstyle by removing it's best spinblocker because of something that almost never actually affects you?
Stop theorymonning for a second here and look at the reality of the issue. You are willing to ban something for a reason that is so statistically insignificant you can play literally hundreds of battles and never encounter it.
While it is true that the complex ban wouldn't hurt a lot of stuff (really, just Froslass and Gliscor in OU) you need to take into account that the "problem" you're "solving" here hardly even exists.
And for those of you who are looking to ban it simply on the principle of "rule consistency" or worse, simply on the principle that less luck is better (despite the consequences)... Is you're idealistic principle really worth putting another ban in place? Remember, that principle is really the ONLY reason you're doing it for, because the chance of this actually affecting a game you're in are very small. Is it worth putting that little bit extra pressure on people attempting to make creative movesets and teams by limiting their options a little bit more? All for the little bit of peace of mind you get, knowing that you'll never miss with that Close Combat of yours (barring Bounce, Fly, Dig, Protect, Night Daze, etc.). Is it worth is it just to see an infintesmal amount of hax vanish?
Answer me here people, I want to know your answer to these questions, and I especially want to hear you addressing why it's worth it despite the extreme infrequency with which the "issue" in question actually comes into play. Don't dance around the issue.
And to this I have to say, seriously people. You want a ban for something that that only actually comes into play in around 0.02% of battles? You're willing to further weaken hail as a playstyle by removing it's best spinblocker because of something that almost never actually affects you?
Stop theorymonning for a second here and look at the reality of the issue. You are willing to ban something for a reason that is so statistically insignificant you can play literally hundreds of battles and never encounter it.
While it is true that the complex ban wouldn't hurt a lot of stuff (really, just Froslass and Gliscor in OU) you need to take into account that the "problem" you're "solving" here hardly even exists.
And for those of you who are looking to ban it simply on the principle of "rule consistency" or worse, simply on the principle that less luck is better (despite the consequences)... Is you're idealistic principle really worth putting another ban in place? Remember, that principle is really the ONLY reason you're doing it for, because the chance of this actually affecting a game you're in are very small. Is it worth putting that little bit extra pressure on people attempting to make creative movesets and teams by limiting their options a little bit more? All for the little bit of peace of mind you get, knowing that you'll never miss with that Close Combat of yours (barring Bounce, Fly, Dig, Protect, Night Daze, etc.). Is it worth is it just to see an infintesmal amount of hax vanish?
Answer me here people, I want to know your answer to these questions, and I especially want to hear you addressing why it's worth it despite the extreme infrequency with which the "issue" in question actually comes into play. Don't dance around the issue.
I have a suspicion that you have never faced a hail team.
Also, less luck is better, and it should be a necessity to minimize the effects of luck as much as possible. I honestly don't care about "statistic significance", I want to be able to ladder knowing that I don't have to put up with Sand Veil/Snow Cloak hax. Is that so much to ask?
I'm using Hail myself...this hax "abuse" isn't truly worthwhile. You might see it as annoying, but that's just what it is: annoying, nothing more.
Also, if you don't care about the actual effect on the metagame, then you shouldn't even be posting here.
There are a few things I don't get with some of these arguments.
1. If the complex ban goes ahead, people won't stop using Sand Stream. You will just get people changing their team and using the opponents sandstorm to still gain the same boosts. Complex ban doesn't change that in any way.
2. You'll only be banning mediocre Pokemon at best. Cacturne, Sandslash etc don't affect OU at all. Snow Warning is already banned in UU so it makes no difference to Frosslass/Glaceon (and even for Sand Stream you are forced to carry Hippopotas as dead weight). Imo, Poison Heal Gliscor is better 75% of the time and Mamoswine is so easily countered it's ridiculous.
3. Someone earlier did the math and proved for 90% and below moves Leftovers gives you "better chance of hax".
4. Finally, I want to echo the slipperly slope thing... I cannot at ALL see why this is worse than abusing Serence Grace Jirachi or Skymin. But they are literally "hax" based Pokemon and people are fine with them. Getting like, 6 flinches in a row is fine compared you missing once because of an evasion boosting item/ability?
tl;dr: Leave it as is. The complex ban solves nothing because people will use the opponents weather, will only ban "Mediocre" Pokemon, Math and Flinch/Para/Fusion hax is imo way way worse.
1. If the complex ban goes ahead, people won't stop using Sand Stream. You will just get people changing their team and using the opponents sandstorm to still gain the same boosts. Complex ban doesn't change that in any way.
2. You'll only be banning mediocre Pokemon at best. Cacturne, Sandslash etc don't affect OU at all. Snow Warning is already banned in UU so it makes no difference to Frosslass/Glaceon (and even for Sand Stream you are forced to carry Hippopotas as dead weight). Imo, Poison Heal Gliscor is better 75% of the time and Mamoswine is so easily countered it's ridiculous.
3. Someone earlier did the math and proved for 90% and below moves Leftovers gives you "better chance of hax".
4. Finally, I want to echo the slipperly slope thing... I cannot at ALL see why this is worse than abusing Serence Grace Jirachi or Skymin. But they are literally "hax" based Pokemon and people are fine with them. Getting like, 6 flinches in a row is fine compared you missing once because of an evasion boosting item/ability?
tl;dr: Leave it as is. The complex ban solves nothing because people will use the opponents weather, will only ban "Mediocre" Pokemon, Math and Flinch/Para/Fusion hax is imo way way worse.
You can't guarantee your opponent will be using sand.
You shouldn't be running "anti"-one kind of team, anyway.
So LucaroarkZ, I have two things to say.
1. I have indeed faced hail teams before and I actually didn't miss against their Snow-Cloak mons. It's only a 20% chance of missing remember; even if you're opponent has them you're not guarenteed to even have so much as a single miss, and there's even less guarantee it'll be a vital miss to the match. I've already pointed out the statistics of this so I won't elaborate more.
2. So, what it comes down to is that you believe luck is a cancer that should be purged from the game wherever it can, no matter the cost? Well I have news for you sir, this is Pokemon and luck is a vital part of the system. But even if I were to suscribe to your belief that luck based elements are bad, I'd still have to weigh the pros and cons of the ban. I've already pointed out that the cons (people not being able to use Froslass on their hail team) come into affect more often than the pros would (Not having to worry about missing). Seeing as one is a minor, once in several hundred matches annoyance and the other completely prevents a team combination, I personally believe it's clear which carries more weight.
1. I have indeed faced hail teams before and I actually didn't miss against their Snow-Cloak mons. It's only a 20% chance of missing remember; even if you're opponent has them you're not guarenteed to even have so much as a single miss, and there's even less guarantee it'll be a vital miss to the match. I've already pointed out the statistics of this so I won't elaborate more.
2. So, what it comes down to is that you believe luck is a cancer that should be purged from the game wherever it can, no matter the cost? Well I have news for you sir, this is Pokemon and luck is a vital part of the system. But even if I were to suscribe to your belief that luck based elements are bad, I'd still have to weigh the pros and cons of the ban. I've already pointed out that the cons (people not being able to use Froslass on their hail team) come into affect more often than the pros would (Not having to worry about missing). Seeing as one is a minor, once in several hundred matches annoyance and the other completely prevents a team combination, I personally believe it's clear which carries more weight.
Then I, being on the anti-any-ban side, shall address it for you.
By your logic about your opponent "choosing how accurate your moves are", then not only should Sand Veil, Snow Cloak, Bright Powder, and Lax Incense be banned, but Sand Attack, Flash, Kinesis, Leaf Tornado, Mirror Shot, Mud Bomb, Mud Slap, Muddy Water, Night Daze, Octazooka, and Smokescreen should be banned too, as they all lower accuracy.
Are these not "deciding how accurate your moves are" too?
Aren't these, by your definition, overpowered and broken?
Is banning these abilities for the 4% chance of game breaking as jimera0 highlights, which is not at all statistically significant,
as well as banning all the moves I listed, not as Hipmonlee put it, "rewriting pokemon to suit our desires"?
Is that not ridiculous?
I think it is.
And Veil/Cloak DOES NOT defeat the purpose of the Flamethrower v Fire Blast argument. If anything, it intensifies it. You are not necessarily choosing the move for the 100% accuracy; you are rather choosing the more accurate of the two. It makes the difference of an 80% accurate Flamethrower or a 65% accurate Fire Blast (if the evasion is additive not multiplicative, I'm not completely sure).
Stratos
Banned deucer.
There is no escaping it; the pro-ban arguments are this.
1) Sand Veil and Snow Cloak add hax to the game.
2) Hax makes the game less fun for me.
3) If something makes the game less fun for me, it should be banned.
Ergo, Sand Veil and Snow Cloak should be banned.
The problem with this argument is that it sets such a dangerous precedent for future tiering discussions that it's not even funny. Anyone who thinks that we aren't apt to work on precedents should ask themselves why, just a year after Aldaron's Proposal (the so-called one and only complex ban) that we've had not one, but two more implemented and one more in serious consideration in this very thread! For god's sake, the entire point of this thread was to determine to what extent we should follow precedent!
For one, it's scary that we're deciding which playstyles are "fun" and "not fun." Playing god for everyone on the ladder is just not cool. It's clear that Sand Veil abuse is not a broken strategy, and dammit if someone wants to use a non-broken strategy, they should be able to. The entire point of banning was to make as many playstyles viable as possible. Why should we get rid of one for everyone just because some of us don't like it?
Secondly, the precedent that we should micromanage our meta to its "most desirable" disturbs me for similar reasons to the above. Who decides what's the most desirable meta? A small proportion of people (in this case it's a whole three.) banning broken things is one thing, but banning something because it is disliked? where does that end? (hint: nowhere.)
Furthermore, it affects more than just sand veil abuse if we go for even the complex ban route. I've already said this, but it appears nobody acknowledged it, so it bears repeating. If I want to run Sandslash on my UU sand team for a spinner and Rocker, well, i'm SOL. It's a perfectly legitimate team combo that has absolutely jack to do with sand veil abuse, but he got caught in the crossfire of people trying to softban hax (or establish a "more consistent rule" or whatever you say, but it's because you wanted to softban hax.)
1) Sand Veil and Snow Cloak add hax to the game.
2) Hax makes the game less fun for me.
3) If something makes the game less fun for me, it should be banned.
Ergo, Sand Veil and Snow Cloak should be banned.
The problem with this argument is that it sets such a dangerous precedent for future tiering discussions that it's not even funny. Anyone who thinks that we aren't apt to work on precedents should ask themselves why, just a year after Aldaron's Proposal (the so-called one and only complex ban) that we've had not one, but two more implemented and one more in serious consideration in this very thread! For god's sake, the entire point of this thread was to determine to what extent we should follow precedent!
For one, it's scary that we're deciding which playstyles are "fun" and "not fun." Playing god for everyone on the ladder is just not cool. It's clear that Sand Veil abuse is not a broken strategy, and dammit if someone wants to use a non-broken strategy, they should be able to. The entire point of banning was to make as many playstyles viable as possible. Why should we get rid of one for everyone just because some of us don't like it?
Secondly, the precedent that we should micromanage our meta to its "most desirable" disturbs me for similar reasons to the above. Who decides what's the most desirable meta? A small proportion of people (in this case it's a whole three.) banning broken things is one thing, but banning something because it is disliked? where does that end? (hint: nowhere.)
Furthermore, it affects more than just sand veil abuse if we go for even the complex ban route. I've already said this, but it appears nobody acknowledged it, so it bears repeating. If I want to run Sandslash on my UU sand team for a spinner and Rocker, well, i'm SOL. It's a perfectly legitimate team combo that has absolutely jack to do with sand veil abuse, but he got caught in the crossfire of people trying to softban hax (or establish a "more consistent rule" or whatever you say, but it's because you wanted to softban hax.)
I'll get to this at length soon.
Also, we don't need to fucking ban everything that affects luck...
Secondly, things shouldn't have to prove their worth in the metagame to stay in it. Unless something is far too broken to exist in a metagame, it shouldn't be banned. Brightpowder and Lax Incense, the latter receiving no usage ever, were banned in all metagames ever, including retroactive decisions in the cases of ADV and DPP, for being "uncompetitive" under a suspect testing method so flawed it was removed one round later. Yeah, maybe it's time to do the right thing and bring Powder and Incense back.
There are two major "treatises" on banning we have here, and those are Smogon's Philosophy and Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame, and honestly under both of those BP/LI would not be banned in my opinion. Smogon's Philosophy says that something should be banned only if it's far too powerful to exist in the metagame. Obviously, that's not the case. Brightpowder and Lax Incense are arguably two of the worst items in the game.
The other one, CDM (for short), also would not support a Brightpowder ban. Though I recognize Smogon's Philosophy as the final word on what should be banned, CDM is still widely accepted as the definitive post on what the metagame ideally should be.
CDM proposes 8 points on what the metagame should be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Also, banning almost irrelevant items really isn't in the spirit of the game either, now is it? I mean, Game Freak gave us these items as a strategy to implement when playing. Smogon decided, through its usage statistics, that Brightpowder and Lax Incense are about as important as Budew and Combee. Is making a ban on these items really necessary?
6.
(same goes with BP/LI, but to a lesser extent)
7.
Sand Veil and Snow Cloak are seen on a whopping ONE Pokemon in OU, and it's NOT EVEN THE PREFERRED ABILITY. Unreasonable? No.
8.
If you lose to one Brightpowder miss, tough shit. GameFreak gave us Wide Lens and Zoom Lens to compensate if you're that paranoid.
This is just April Fools 2009 all over again, right?
EDIT: More thoughts
EDIT: more thoughts!
Okay, people say that a complex ban is more "consistent with Smogon policy". Honestly, I think that's untrue because Smogon policy, Smogon official policy, is to ban only what's broken. Not to ban what's uncompetitive, not to ban what's "luck" or "hax", but to ban what's broken. Things that reduce the game to a dice roll are obviously broken, it's why Evasion Clause was made in the first place! Evasion Clause is there to get rid of Double Team and Minimize, two moves that would be broken in any metagame. Same with OHKO (though I think a reasonable case could be made for OHKOs. Not one that I have much of an opinion on, but I would love to see a debate about it) Clause, Sleep Clause, and (originally) Freeze Clause.
You know what's consistent with Smogon policy? The idea of banning only what's broken. It's what we did in Generations 3 and 4 (but then we cockblocked Baton Pass in 3 which was a really bad idea...) and it's what we're failing to do in 5. BP+LI was banned because of Garchomp. Not because of luck. It was, as Jibaku put it IIRC, a kneejerk reaction to the pressing issue of Garchomp.
Honestly, I don't think much will come out of this debate. It's just a clash of philosophies of banning things that are "uncompetitive" vs. banning things that are "broken", and I'm a member of the second camp. Both camps have their points, but Smogon policy has always supported the second camp, not the first. I see no reason for it to change over a trivial issue such as Brightpowder or Sand Veil.
Also, we don't need to fucking ban everything that affects luck...
Evasion is multiplicative, it's an 80% Flamethrower vs. a 68% Fire Blast for future reference.
By that logic we should ban Thunderbolt, Thunder, Ice Beam, Blizzard, Flamethrower, Fire Blast, Flame Wheel, Rock Side, Iron Head, Bite, Focus Band, Quick Claw, and anything else with a primary or secondary effect that depends on luck. What's great about Pokemon is the combined aspects of skill and luck. Pokemon is not chess.someone earlier said:
Secondly, things shouldn't have to prove their worth in the metagame to stay in it. Unless something is far too broken to exist in a metagame, it shouldn't be banned. Brightpowder and Lax Incense, the latter receiving no usage ever, were banned in all metagames ever, including retroactive decisions in the cases of ADV and DPP, for being "uncompetitive" under a suspect testing method so flawed it was removed one round later. Yeah, maybe it's time to do the right thing and bring Powder and Incense back.
There are two major "treatises" on banning we have here, and those are Smogon's Philosophy and Characteristics of a Desirable Metagame, and honestly under both of those BP/LI would not be banned in my opinion. Smogon's Philosophy says that something should be banned only if it's far too powerful to exist in the metagame. Obviously, that's not the case. Brightpowder and Lax Incense are arguably two of the worst items in the game.
The other one, CDM (for short), also would not support a Brightpowder ban. Though I recognize Smogon's Philosophy as the final word on what should be banned, CDM is still widely accepted as the definitive post on what the metagame ideally should be.
CDM proposes 8 points on what the metagame should be:
1.
Banning two items with little impact on the metagame is not "uncompetitive". Things like Double Team, which can turn Pokemon into a veritable crapshoot, are because they introduce so much luck into the game numerous games hinge on luck. Brightpowder and Lax Incense cost a valuable item slot, rarely ever work, and are insignificant to the grand scheme of things. Hardly "uncompetitive".CDM said:
2.
By banning BP/LI, you reduce the variety of the game by a very small degree. This, though to a very small extent, goes against the CDM and should be a strong reason to reverse the ban in Round 3.
3.
Brightpowder and Lax Incense don't balance or unbalance anything.
4.
Again, no problems here.
5.
This might be the strongest reason against the complex ban of extending evasion clause. The mechanics of the actual Pokemon game do not allow complex bans, moveset bans as a result, or complicated policy that would unnecessarily complicate the OU metagame. Having to make non-simulator players research complex bans, strategies, and moveset restrictions really zap the fun of Pokemon and definitely go against the spirit of the game.
Also, banning almost irrelevant items really isn't in the spirit of the game either, now is it? I mean, Game Freak gave us these items as a strategy to implement when playing. Smogon decided, through its usage statistics, that Brightpowder and Lax Incense are about as important as Budew and Combee. Is making a ban on these items really necessary?
6.
Some pro-ban people might think that this is why luck should be banned; however, this might be one of the best reasons against the BP/LI ban and especially the complex ban because of this Issue/Concern proposed by Doug:
If Sand Veil, Snow Cloak + Sandstream and Snow Warning isn't an artificial complication to increase skill requirement then I don't know what is...DougJustDoug said:
(same goes with BP/LI, but to a lesser extent)
7.
BP and LI are completely reasonable.
Sand Veil and Snow Cloak are seen on a whopping ONE Pokemon in OU, and it's NOT EVEN THE PREFERRED ABILITY. Unreasonable? No.
8.
Oh, I spoke too soon earlier. This is the best argument against the complex ban because it creates a ton of extra work for the player on a non-simulator Pokemon game. Smogon doesn't exist just to serve simulator players, it exists to create a definitive banlist for Pokemon players everywhere. The simulator crowd is just a small fraction of competitive players everywhere, we shouldn't make the causal and semi-casual players have to adhere to complex bans, and having to research moveset restrictions, ability restrictions, and other complexities (plus the incredibly shaky reasoning for the BP/LI bans which was glorified whining) makes the game "hard work". Complex bans in general do that.
If you lose to one Brightpowder miss, tough shit. GameFreak gave us Wide Lens and Zoom Lens to compensate if you're that paranoid.
This is just April Fools 2009 all over again, right?
EDIT: More thoughts
Uh...wut? We're playing a game where just about every attacking option has a secondary, chance based effect and you're saying luck isn't a vital part of the system? What about team matchup? There's a chance element there too. I'm sorry, but if you say luck isn't a vital part of the system then I'm not really sure what is...LucaroarkZ said:
The same way I feel when I'm haxed by Scald, Lava Plume, paralysis, Stone Edge, Fire Blast missing or burning, Draco Meteor missing, or an untimely crit. Should we ban these next?
EDIT: more thoughts!
Okay, people say that a complex ban is more "consistent with Smogon policy". Honestly, I think that's untrue because Smogon policy, Smogon official policy, is to ban only what's broken. Not to ban what's uncompetitive, not to ban what's "luck" or "hax", but to ban what's broken. Things that reduce the game to a dice roll are obviously broken, it's why Evasion Clause was made in the first place! Evasion Clause is there to get rid of Double Team and Minimize, two moves that would be broken in any metagame. Same with OHKO (though I think a reasonable case could be made for OHKOs. Not one that I have much of an opinion on, but I would love to see a debate about it) Clause, Sleep Clause, and (originally) Freeze Clause.
You know what's consistent with Smogon policy? The idea of banning only what's broken. It's what we did in Generations 3 and 4 (but then we cockblocked Baton Pass in 3 which was a really bad idea...) and it's what we're failing to do in 5. BP+LI was banned because of Garchomp. Not because of luck. It was, as Jibaku put it IIRC, a kneejerk reaction to the pressing issue of Garchomp.
Honestly, I don't think much will come out of this debate. It's just a clash of philosophies of banning things that are "uncompetitive" vs. banning things that are "broken", and I'm a member of the second camp. Both camps have their points, but Smogon policy has always supported the second camp, not the first. I see no reason for it to change over a trivial issue such as Brightpowder or Sand Veil.
Take a look at the Primary Abusers:
Gliscor: Sub/SD/Acrobatics/EQ with Flying Gem. The standard set has nothing against skarmory as well as absolutely no recovery. This is completely countered by Skarmory as even if you miss a whirlwind due to SV, you'll take around 17% at +2. Skarmory isn't just a Gliscor counter, so it won't weigh down the team or anything.
Froslass: 70/70/70 bulk is horribly weak. So you miss an attack. You get a layer of Hazards on your side of the field. Let's see the popular spinners:
Starmie: Wreaks havoc with STAB Hydro Pump
Forretress: Gyro Ball should be maxed power, insta-ko
Donphan?:Well, it's used on Sun teams. Wait a minute. Sun...
Tentacruel: Generally on Rain Teams... Could always just attack.
So by missing on Gliscor, you'll just take some extra damage. And by missing on Froslass, who in the face of all but Starmie, will just get in a mandatory taunt when your purpose was to attack. For Starmie, I could see the issue, but Froslass is really frail anyways.
In other words: By missing, not much will happen.
Gliscor: Sub/SD/Acrobatics/EQ with Flying Gem. The standard set has nothing against skarmory as well as absolutely no recovery. This is completely countered by Skarmory as even if you miss a whirlwind due to SV, you'll take around 17% at +2. Skarmory isn't just a Gliscor counter, so it won't weigh down the team or anything.
Froslass: 70/70/70 bulk is horribly weak. So you miss an attack. You get a layer of Hazards on your side of the field. Let's see the popular spinners:
Starmie: Wreaks havoc with STAB Hydro Pump
Forretress: Gyro Ball should be maxed power, insta-ko
Donphan?:Well, it's used on Sun teams. Wait a minute. Sun...
Tentacruel: Generally on Rain Teams... Could always just attack.
So by missing on Gliscor, you'll just take some extra damage. And by missing on Froslass, who in the face of all but Starmie, will just get in a mandatory taunt when your purpose was to attack. For Starmie, I could see the issue, but Froslass is really frail anyways.
In other words: By missing, not much will happen.
my opinion.
the banning of brightpowder and lax incense was caused by a pathetic build-up of anger towards missing moves on the ladder, specifically in the face of garchomp. i think it is the dumbest ban ever adopted considering how unreliable these items truly are and the cons to using them. brightpowder and lax incense boost your luck chance, that is it. it is not a very huge deal whether they are kept banned or not, but it is unnecessary to have them banned.
please do not put a complex ban on something so simple like this. i had a joke here regarding bloo's neeed for brightpowder in the face of earthworm, but i spoke about it so much that it fucking sucks now. so, just dont ban the dam items because smogon DOES NOT ban items, except soul dew.
the banning of brightpowder and lax incense was caused by a pathetic build-up of anger towards missing moves on the ladder, specifically in the face of garchomp. i think it is the dumbest ban ever adopted considering how unreliable these items truly are and the cons to using them. brightpowder and lax incense boost your luck chance, that is it. it is not a very huge deal whether they are kept banned or not, but it is unnecessary to have them banned.
please do not put a complex ban on something so simple like this. i had a joke here regarding bloo's neeed for brightpowder in the face of earthworm, but i spoke about it so much that it fucking sucks now. so, just dont ban the dam items because smogon DOES NOT ban items, except soul dew.
I guess I'm just heavily biased against luck and in favor of winning games due to skill. Sue me.
Anyway, luck is not a vital part of the system, whether you choose to believe to or not. There's this thing called skill, you should try it out some time.
Also, being unable to use Froslass on a hail team? Boo hoo, cry me a fucking river. Resort to skillful strategies like using an actually defensive spiker, and a better spinblocker.
Let's throw in a scenario, for example. You are outplaying some hail team noob in a +0/-1000000000000000000 battle. You switch in Scizor on Froslass's Blizzard. You Bullet Punch it, and it misses. Froslass paralyzes you with Thunder Wave. You try again, you get parahaxed, Froslass gets a free sub. You try again, Bullet Punch misses, Froslass gets a free layer of Spikes. You try again, it hits and breaks the sub, but Froslass gets another free layer of Spikes. You go for another Bullet Punch for a free kill, but you get another parahax and Froslass gets a free sub. You manage to break the sub the next turn, but Froslass got up the third layer of Spikes.
That shit can happen. Tell me how you feel when you get haxed by Snow Cloak.
The problem here is clearly Snow Cloak. You can actually build a team that has a good chance of falling back on luck. On luck. I've seen plenty of cases of stupid shit like Waterfall missing 3 times in a row vs. SV Gliscor. You're saying you want to keep this in the metagame?
Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
- Status