Suggestions for OM Improvement

While you are nerfing something that isn't broken, avoiding complex bans is more important. We banned shadow tag, not shadow tag on every pokemon bar gothita; we ban parental bond in aaa, not parental bond on everythign bar magikarp and feebas. Either shift gear is broken in principle, and we shouldn't be making exceptions, or it isn't, and we should be banning individual abusers.
You also banned ability/move from the main natural users of the move/ability. While this is fine if the abuser is powerful enough, it leads to bans that don't need to happen. Sometimes the natural user is fine to have an ability/move on, as it is not powerful enough on its own. And while this is true, going through a laundry list of over 800 Pokémon to determine which one is broken with a specific move is simply insanity in a form of work, and is simply not feasible for a number of reasons. (It helps giving the natural users that aren't broken an advantage, as well. Klinklang would suck in Sketchmons without Shift Gear.)

Checking the natural users to see if they are okay is a better decision, and one that has worked for a long while now. It is why Kangsaskhanite is still banned in AAA; Mega Kangashkhan is too powerful with Parental Bond. It is also why Shadow Tag Gothitelle (and the whole line, just in case someone is crazy enough to use them) is also not allowed in AAA; we use the most powerful form of the natural users to determine if an ability is broken, and then the banning policies are put in place.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
It makes sense in OU for Shadow Tag to be banned on everything because the community has decided the ability is uncompetitive wholesale. If Shadow Tag is banned, that's the end of it. OMs are by definition not standard, but we build a lot of our banlists off of OU (or Ubers/DOU/LC/etc) because it's just easier to manage them that way, which means in essence that OMs borrowing the OU banlist are "Standard+."

Now, with a metagame like Sketchmons, the mechanic allows for one free Sketch per Pokemon. This mechanic is technically just a change to access (STABmons, AAA, and BH do this too). In your example, Sketchmons hasn't made Shift Gear any better, it's just expanded access to the move. What the mechanic has done is made individual or groups of Pokemon better because they can now use the move. When Sketchmons decides to ban Shift Gear on only non-native learners, it is staying true to the mechanics of the metagame--it's removed that access.
Either shift gear is broken in principle, and we shouldn't be making exceptions, or it isn't, and we should be banning individual abusers.
Shift Gear may be broken in principle, but that's not Sketchmons's job to determine. What Sketchmons can do, however, is determine whether Shift Gear is broken on other Pokemon besides Klinklang, and if too many of them are, curtail that access. On the topic of Shadow Tag, it's universally agreed that it's uncompetitive on everything in OU. There was no need to ban Gothitelle but save Gothita. Same with Moody, self-evasion, Swagger prior to Gen 7, etc. OU hasn't determined that Shift Gear alone breaks any Pokemon with the move, and thus the baseline is set. Now its Sketchmons's job to apply its mechanic and trim back the excess.

Now, I'm aware that something like BH has taken an all-or-nothing approach to bans, but in a metagame as free as BH and that has no baseline banlist to adhere to, this is acceptable. So long as the other ladders are consistent with whatever method they choose (e.g. avoiding something like banning Shift Gear universally but allowing Belly Drum on native learners), I don't see the problem with the variability.

In regards to complexity, I don't see how such a ban can be considered complex. As I've already shown, Sketchmons is only concerned with move access. OU, however, doesn't have this problem and so when it bans Shadow Tag, it doesn't have to worry about making exceptions. Now, your Swift Swim Magikarp example is weak. Last gen, the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban would have prevented a Swift Swim Magikarp on a team with Drizzle regardless of how effective it is. The ban is consistent. There's nothing complex about saying "Access to Shift Gear is cut-off to non-native learners." Standard players are already playing with Shift Gear limited to Klinklang; why suddenly can't they understand the move is too good to be allowed on everything else?
 
I don't know what's the best policy for other metas besides Sketchmons but regarding Sketchmons, I do NOT agree about blanket banning the moves on original abuser, simply because it doesn't follow the basis of the meta. The basis of Sketchmons meta is the move "Sketch" which makes you learn any one of the illegal moves. So it makes more sense if the banning policy also follows the basis of the meta, in this case, ban the move from being Sketched, NOT just blanket banning the move.

Regarding AAA, BH, etc. I don't really know what's the best decision for them since there's no "Sketching Abilities" so this discussion make sense BUT in Sketchmons, there is a mechanic of the meta in that can be applied to the banlist, so I think it's best that Sketchmon's bans (especially move bans) also follows the basis mechanic of the meta.
 
Something I'd like to clarify before this gets any further: there's a fundamental difference in OU between, say, Shadow Tag Gothita and Moody Whimsicott; one of them is banned, as Shadow Tag isn't allowed, while one of them is illegal, as Whimsicott can't get Moody. Specifically, this means that one of them can be allowed in the future should the banlist change, while the other requires interference from Nintendo.
I don't know what's the best policy for other metas besides Sketchmons but regarding Sketchmons, I do NOT agree about blanket banning the moves on original abuser, simply because it doesn't follow the basis of the meta. The basis of Sketchmons meta is the move "Sketch" which makes you learn any one of the illegal moves. So it makes more sense if the banning policy also follows the basis of the meta, in this case, ban the move from being Sketched, NOT just blanket banning the move.

Regarding AAA, BH, etc. I don't really know what's the best decision for them since there's no "Sketching Abilities" so this discussion make sense BUT in Sketchmons, there is a mechanic of the meta in that can be applied to the banlist, so I think it's best that Sketchmon's bans (especially move bans) also follows the basis mechanic of the meta.
You also banned ability/move from the main natural users of the move/ability. While this is fine if the abuser is powerful enough, it leads to bans that don't need to happen. Sometimes the natural user is fine to have an ability/move on, as it is not powerful enough on its own. And while this is true, going through a laundry list of over 800 Pokémon to determine which one is broken with a specific move is simply insanity in a form of work, and is simply not feasible for a number of reasons. (It helps giving the natural users that aren't broken an advantage, as well. Klinklang would suck in Sketchmons without Shift Gear.)

Checking the natural users to see if they are okay is a better decision, and one that has worked for a long while now. It is why Kangsaskhanite is still banned in AAA; Mega Kangashkhan is too powerful with Parental Bond. It is also why Shadow Tag Gothitelle (and the whole line, just in case someone is crazy enough to use them) is also not allowed in AAA; we use the most powerful form of the natural users to determine if an ability is broken, and then the banning policies are put in place.
I'm going to address these together, as I feel they follow the same flawed argument that I have an issue with; if either of you feel your points are misrepresented here, please let me know.
My issue with all of your suggestions is that it's a complex ban. Sketchmons and Stabmons add a mechanic to the game. It's not a list of unbans like you're unbanning and then rebanning Shift Gear Mega Metagross, it's something that, for the purposes of the OM, fundamentally changes that sort of legality so that Metagross can learn Shift Gear. This is fine. However, when you restrict based on that it's the problem. For Sketchmons or Stabmons, banning a move from being sketched is exactly the same as banning it from being gained via TM's, or event, or eggs: both are simply a way the Pokemon can gain the moves. It's a change in legality rather than an in battle ban; the teambuilder doesn't reject it because it's carrying Shift Gear, but rather because it obtained Shift Gear via Sketching/Stabbing, which is in opposition to everything Smogon has done with tiering.
With AAA, the same issue comes into play. AAA as a method for gaining access to an ability is no different than hidden abilities or except in breadth. The issue can't be powerlevel, as Dugtrio, say, is blatantly more powerful with Arena Trap than Magikarp or Sunkern, and even if you weren't sure where to draw the line they would be on the other side. Instead, AAA has chosen to simply cut off one method of gaining an ability rather than the ability as a whole.

Again, my apologies here: I'm going to be splitting up your post to better answer it.
It makes sense in OU for Shadow Tag to be banned on everything because the community has decided the ability is uncompetitive wholesale. If Shadow Tag is banned, that's the end of it. OMs are by definition not standard, but we build a lot of our banlists off of OU (or Ubers/DOU/LC/etc) because it's just easier to manage them that way, which means in essence that OMs borrowing the OU banlist are "Standard+."

Now, with a metagame like Sketchmons, the mechanic allows for one free Sketch per Pokemon. This mechanic is technically just a change to access (STABmons, AAA, and BH do this too). In your example, Sketchmons hasn't made Shift Gear any better, it's just expanded access to the move. What the mechanic has done is made individual or groups of Pokemon better because they can now use the move. When Sketchmons decides to ban Shift Gear on only non-native learners, it is staying true to the mechanics of the metagame--it's removed that access.
This is where the definition above kicks in: our banlists for almost every OM starts at OU. Deciding that Metagross can learn Shift Gear doesn't effect banlist at all, it just changes legality. We may ban or unban Pokemon (or in a few cases items/abilities), but our metagames by themselves don't, and no Pokemon in Sketchmons is banned by ou; were the Pokemon to get those moves naturally, as of right now they would be perfectly legal.

When Sketchmons does that, therefore, they aren't doing that. As shown by the precedent here, we don't get to ban things based on where they came from, or because we would prefer the metagame. At the risk of repeating myself overmuch, we can't prevent Pokemon from getting the move via sketch any more than we get to prevent them from learning it via event or by move tutor.
Shift Gear may be broken in principle, but that's not Sketchmons's job to determine. What Sketchmons can do, however, is determine whether Shift Gear is broken on other Pokemon besides Klinklang, and if too many of them are, curtail that access. On the topic of Shadow Tag, it's universally agreed that it's uncompetitive on everything in OU. There was no need to ban Gothitelle but save Gothita. Same with Moody, self-evasion, Swagger prior to Gen 7, etc. OU hasn't determined that Shift Gear alone breaks any Pokemon with the move, and thus the baseline is set. Now its Sketchmons's job to apply its mechanic and trim back the excess.

Now, I'm aware that something like BH has taken an all-or-nothing approach to bans, but in a metagame as free as BH and that has no baseline banlist to adhere to, this is acceptable. So long as the other ladders are consistent with whatever method they choose (e.g. avoiding something like banning Shift Gear universally but allowing Belly Drum on native learners), I don't see the problem with the variability.

In regards to complexity, I don't see how such a ban can be considered complex. As I've already shown, Sketchmons is only concerned with move access. OU, however, doesn't have this problem and so when it bans Shadow Tag, it doesn't have to worry about making exceptions. Now, your Swift Swim Magikarp example is weak. Last gen, the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban would have prevented a Swift Swim Magikarp on a team with Drizzle regardless of how effective it is. The ban is consistent. There's nothing complex about saying "Access to Shift Gear is cut-off to non-native learners." Standard players are already playing with Shift Gear limited to Klinklang; why suddenly can't they understand the move is too good to be allowed on everything else?
Again, tying this in; it's my opinion that Sketchmons shouldn't be able to break Smogon policy and do that. You don't ban something on 95% of Pokemon because it's broken on 60% of Pokemon; either <Pokemon with Shift Gear> are too strong, and thus the move needs to go entirely, or it's not and we should remove broken users This halfway legality change, however, is far worse than either decision.
In terms of complexity, I don't see why it would matter if Sketchmons bans are consistent; they're still complex. It would be consistent to ban Ubers from having moves over 60 BP, but wouldn't make it any less stupid. While obviously this isn't that bad, the only difference is in scale.

The last part of this is much more compelling. While I would disagree that my Swift Swim Magikarp example is weak (this is where I was going with it; despite it not being broken, it's still banned because the strategy was). DrizzleSwim, however, was also a complex ban. I also dislike it for that reason, but because of that I am willing to accept them should they be direly needed for metagame balance. However, I have seen no evidence that that is the case - if Shift Gear Magearna, Thousand Arrows Zygarde, or Arena Trap Dugtrio is a powerful, necessary balancing factor, please support that - so as is I see no reason why we should go complex, particularly on a scale this large.
 
I kinda agree with QT, banning a move is not complex, banning a mon is not complex, but banning the combination of a mon (or a group of mon) and a move is complex.

Shift gear might or might not be broken in principal, but nobody looks at moves in a vacuum. OU doesn't do that either, they make their judgment based on who gets the move. Poor distribution if often game freak's way of balancing things, in OU only KlingKlang gets Shift Gear so it's okay. In Setchmons a bunch of other pokes can get it, which made shift gear broken, so it gets banned, and bummer for the mons who aren't broken with it.
 
The issue of Sketchmons isn't it's complex or not complex. It's consistency. By banning moves from sketching, I am consistent to the basic rule of the metagame. That's what sketchmons do, as said by Eevee General: to determine if Sketch moves are broken or not. It's not complex. And also, there is NO basis for a blanket ban move in Sketchmons.

Note that this is just for Sketchmons, not AAA or something.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
I kinda agree with QT, banning a move is not complex, banning a mon is not complex, but banning the combination of a mon (or a group of mon) and a move is complex.
That's true. Sketchmons isn't doing that. It's saying "Shift Gear can't be used on non-native learners," something that's already the case in OU.
Shift gear might or might not be broken in principal, but nobody looks at moves in a vacuum. OU doesn't do that either, they make their judgment based on who gets the move. Poor distribution if often game freak's way of balancing things, in OU only KlingKlang gets Shift Gear so it's okay. In Setchmons a bunch of other pokes can get it, which made shift gear broken, so it gets banned, and bummer for the mons who aren't broken with it.
Tbf, Swagger, Minimize, Double Team, and the OHKO attacks were all looked at in vacuums.

Sketchmons expanding access of Shift Gear does nothing to change the move itself. If it was broken it would be broken on Klinklang in OU and in Sketchmons. Remember, Sketchmons isn't in the business of determining if moves were broken to begin with, its focus is determining if new access to moves can break a Pokemon or group of Pokemon. For these reasons, wholesale banning of moves is out of the purview of the metagame's premise.


*Edit to include Chopin's post.
The issue of Sketchmons isn't it's complex or not complex. It's consistency. By banning moves from sketching, I am consistent to the basic rule of the metagame. That's what sketchmons do, as said by Eevee General: to determine if Sketch moves are broken or not. It's not complex. And also, there is NO basis for a blanket ban move in Sketchmons.

Note that this is just for Sketchmons, not AAA or something.
I'm also arguing that AAA falls into the same "rule." Where metagames that expand access to things are concerned, their job is to look at the new access to moves, abilities, items, etc. AAA should also not ban abilities wholesale, as it's inheriting from a banlist that already decided "these abilities are not broken on these Pokemon." Anything beyond that is fair game.
 
Last edited:
I see one issue with banning broken users of Shift Gear. (Note that this can apply to most broken moves as well for STABmons/Sketchmons.) Back sometime ago in Gen VI, STABmons was banning Pokemon instead of moves. The banlist got very inflated. I see the same problem with just banning the abusers of Thousand Arrows/Shift Gear. If you ban the abusers, the banlist gets very inflated very quickly, and gets worst the more abusers of broken moves you ban. A blanket ban on Thousand Arrows keeps the users like Garchomp and Landorus-T in the OM. Same goes for Shift Gear and Mega Scizor/Celesteela. The Pokemon are not broken outside of the broken move in question. Banning the move keeps the Pokemon in the format, but removes the broken element. A Pokemon ban is for if a Pokemon is broken no matter what moves are banned and to keep the move in the tier, such as STABmons Tapu Lele or Mega Metagross.
 
The issue of Sketchmons isn't it's complex or not complex. It's consistency. By banning moves from sketching, I am consistent to the basic rule of the metagame. That's what sketchmons do, as said by Eevee General: to determine if Sketch moves are broken or not. It's not complex. And also, there is NO basis for a blanket ban move in Sketchmons.

Note that this is just for Sketchmons, not AAA or something.
I take it back, you're right; that's not a complex ban like eevee suggested, that's a patch, which is even worse.
A simple ban is just that. Mega Metagross is longer allowed, Shadow Tag is no longer allowed, chatter is no longer allowed, etc. This is fine as long as it's not overdone.
A complex ban is one in which you combine bans, such as not allowing Swift Swim or Drizzle on the same team, or preventing just Blaziken from having Speed Boost. The are a last resort for tiering concerns.
A patch is where you change the mechanics of the game. This is expressly forbidden in tiering, and for other metagames is only allowed as part of the metagame basis .

A blatant move/ability/mon ban, or on very rare occasions complex bans to balance a broken metagame, should really be the only option for non petmods. If your suggestion is to make it so that shift gear behaves like chatter with sketch, something has gone wrong.

That's true. Sketchmons isn't doing that. It's saying "Shift Gear can't be used on non-native learners," something that's already the case in OU.

Tbf, Swagger, Minimize, Double Team, and the OHKO attacks were all looked at in vacuums.

Sketchmons expanding access of Shift Gear does nothing to change the move itself. If it was broken it would be broken on Klinklang in OU and in Sketchmons. Remember, Sketchmons isn't in the business of determining if moves were broken to begin with, its focus is determining if new access to moves can break a Pokemon or group of Pokemon. For these reasons, wholesale banning of moves is out of the purview of the metagame's premise.


*Edit to include Chopin's post.

I'm also arguing that AAA falls into the same "rule." Where metagames that expand access to things are concerned, their job is to look at the new access to moves, abilities, items, etc. AAA should also not ban abilities wholesale, as it's inheriting from a banlist that already decided "these abilities are not broken on these Pokemon." Anything beyond that is fair game.
As motherlove so eloquently summed up above, "banning a move is not complex, banning a mon is not complex, but banning the combination of a mon (or a group of mon) and a move is complex." Banning <shift gear/thousand arrows/etc> on <pokemon that learn it via the metagame> is exactly that. So would banning wish on anything that only through event, or surf on anything that got it through HM. While it's definitely better than making it so that you can't sketch the move thousand arrows, it's still distinctly inferior to not complex banning.

I suppose I have to attribute this to some kind of fundamental tiering disagreement. If this is what The Immortal and scpinion want from the metagme - that we only ban things that are changed by the metagame in the way that they are changed by the metagame - then I suppose I'll just accept it, but I fundamentally dislike it. That kind of policy would prevent, say, Mix and Mega from banning the obscenely broken baton pass because Ubers doesn't, while at the same time allowing for what I can only describe as complex bans (ie, only Gengar can hold Gengarite).
I see one issue with banning broken users of Shift Gear. (Note that this can apply to most broken moves as well for STABmons/Sketchmons.) Back sometime ago in Gen VI, STABmons was banning Pokemon instead of moves. The banlist got very inflated. I see the same problem with just banning the abusers of Thousand Arrows/Shift Gear. If you ban the abusers, the banlist gets very inflated very quickly, and gets worst the more abusers of broken moves you ban. A blanket ban on Thousand Arrows keeps the users like Garchomp and Landorus-T in the OM. Same goes for Shift Gear and Mega Scizor/Celesteela. The Pokemon are not broken outside of the broken move in question. Banning the move keeps the Pokemon in the format, but removes the broken element. A Pokemon ban is for if a Pokemon is broken no matter what moves are banned and to keep the move in the tier, such as STABmons Tapu Lele or Mega Metagross.
I'd agree with this completely; if it is the move that's the issue, ban the move. I just object to this weird half state that has the worst parts of both, and feel we should ban either ban users or ban the move/ability/item instead of our current methods.
I'm reading the arguments for both sides of this "complex ban" issue, and am going to give my thoughts:
Why Nerdy 's point was exactly right and understated. The ban is to the effect of the mechanic, similarly to how Mix and Mega still allows Gengarite on Gengar and Beedrillite on Beedrill. By QT's reasoning, the MnM ban would be 'complex'. The Swift Swim Magikarp and other examples as such are quite weak for 2 reasons:

1) I believe taking a non-native learner and a native learner is kind of comparing apples and oranges. As the metagames are based off the game itself you are comparing something legal in a normal tier with something that was created by the community, its already predetermined who gets what moves and who doesn't - ironically a blanket ban can be more complex than a non-native user ban because instead of not allowing something to be given you now are taking things away (from native users), if you see my reasoning.

2) Its not like the ban is "[x ability] is banned on [this, this, and this pokemon]", and if this was the case then yes, I would think that is silly because who is deciding what is considered "not broken". Bans are obviously to ban broken things, and you don't just decide whats "not broken" to decide what is. I think this is understood so your example is blowing it out of proportion.

Now this also works the other way around, banning just the abusers is also a bad idea, because most of the time new abusers can be found, and then banlists get inflated (as someone stated above iirc) and eventually the metagame will over-centralize around originally non broke things because its at the point where you use "okay" or "bad".


Meh, they were looked at in that way because their use and abuse was all determined in luck, not skill. Shift Gear, trapping moves, and other things we are discussing are not being discussed because they are based on chance but because they are (theoretically) used in over-centralizing ways and would be (theoretically) "too good" if left unbanned. Arena Trap Dugtrio is not considered "too good" because it actually exists.

This sums up everything pretty well, because OM's don't make their own banlist to start from - they take it from other tiers (mostly OU).


I may have completely misinterpreted everybody's arguments, but it seemed straight in my head :p
Absolutely, I'd agree that the mnm ban was/is complex.

I like how you argued it, but I'm afraid I disagree on every point :p. Once an OM is created, we shouldn't be taking <standard legality> as a concern anymore than we take <Gained in gen 7 legality> (yes vcg I know) or <gotten without tms> legality. For the purposes of STABmons, there is no difference in legality between Scald Keldeo and Steam Eruption Keldeo despite the fact that one of them is allowed in OU; in Stabmons, Keldeo learns Steam Eruption, just like in stadard ou it learns surf. Thus, any such cutoff is just as arbitrary as banning moves optained in gen 6, or anything like that.
 
Last edited:
QT's post at #54 makes sense. AAA and other OMs have been implementing restrictions based on the concept since forever, before I was even an OM mod. It's kind of part of the OM culture at this point, complex or not. People won't like that being changed. As always though, we'll take your suggestion under consideration.
 
As motherlove so eloquently summed up above, "banning a move is not complex, banning a mon is not complex, but banning the combination of a mon (or a group of mon) and a move is complex." Banning <shift gear/thousand arrows/etc> on <pokemon that learn it via the metagame> is exactly that. So would banning wish on anything that only through event, or surf on anything that got it through HM. While it's definitely better than making it so that you can't sketch the move thousand arrows, it's still distinctly inferior to not complex banning.

I suppose I have to attribute this to some kind of fundamental tiering disagreement. If this is what The Immortal and scpinion want from the metagme - that we only ban things that are changed by the metagame in the way that they are changed by the metagame - then I suppose I'll just accept it, but I fundamentally dislike it. That kind of policy would prevent, say, Mix and Mega from banning the obscenely broken baton pass because Ubers doesn't, while at the same time allowing for what I can only describe as complex bans (ie, only Gengar can hold Gengarite).

I like how you argued it, but I'm afraid I disagree on every point :p. Once an OM is created, we shouldn't be taking <standard legality> as a concern anymore than we take <Gained in gen 7 legality> (yes vcg I know) or <gotten without tms> legality. For the purposes of STABmons, there is no difference in legality between Scald Keldeo and Steam Eruption Keldeo despite the fact that one of them is allowed in OU; in Stabmons, Keldeo learns Steam Eruption, just like in stadard sketchmons learn surf. Thus, any such cutoff is just as arbitrary as banning moves optained in gen 6, or anything like that.
You're phrasing this in a way that makes these bans look complex, but in my opinion you're looking at this the wrong way. OMs build upon standard tiers - allowing Pokemon that originally have access to a certain ability / move / whatever to keep using them is not a complex ban, because it is consistently banning based on what can be added to a Pokemon outside of the game's standard ruleset.

In AAA, for example, an "Arena Trap ban" is not a ban on Arena Trap as a whole, and perhaps it's the name that's misleading you here. It's a ban on the addition of Arena Trap in any way that conflicts with the original rules of the game. In more mathematical terms, AAA's ruleset applies a transformation (making almost any ability legal on all Pokemon) to the original set (OU) in order to create a new set (AAA). An AAA ban is a modification on the transformation in order to make the resulting new set more competitive. Since the ban is applied on the transformation in an uncomplex manner that makes no exceptions, the ban is not complex.

EDIT: BH isn't applicable to this argument since that's more of a straight up "anything goes" thing than a transformation on any standard tier, but IIRC BH already blanket bans so that shouldn't be a problem.
EDIT2: motherlove you raise a valid point about Pokemon not generally following this rule, but even though Pokemon bans are applied on the new set as opposed to the transformation, I don't personally believe there's a problem with having ability bans be applied to the transformation and Pokemon and move bans being applied to the final or initial set (same result).
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with this completely; if it is the move that's the issue, ban the move. I just object to this weird half state that has the worst parts of both, and feel we should ban either ban users or ban the move/ability/item instead of our current methods.
That's true, and I agree that we should ban the move on everything, including the Pokemon that get it normally. Thousand Arrows is not broken on Zygarde, but the move itself is broken. There lies the problem. Do we ban Thousand Arrows on everything except Zygarde, like it's always been done, or do we ban the move altogether, including banning it on Zygarde, even though it can learn it normally? Same goes for Shift Gear. Do we ban Shift Gear on everything except Klinklang, or do we just ban the move altogether, including Pokemon that learn the move normally, such as Klinklang? For me, it's obvious, the second option, as the way I see it, banning Thousand Arrows on everything except Zygarde (which we have been currently doing) is a complex ban to an extent, not a whole lot different from banning Blaziken if it has Speed Boost in OU.

This can also apply to metagames like AAA. So looking at the Protean ban, do we ban Protean on everything except Greninja or do we ban Protean entirely, including banning Greninja from Protean? Ideally, we would want to ban Protean, but some people would say that Protean Greninja isn't broken, but the way I see it, using a banned ability on a Pokemon that gets said banned ability normally is a loophole to gain the banned ability. For example, in AAA, Arena Trap is banned. However, you can use Dugtrio, even if it has Arena Trap, because it normally gets Arena Trap. I see this as a loophole and thus Arena Trap should be banned. By using this way of banning moves (for Sketchmons/STABmons) or abilities (for AAA), it also benefits the community, as suspect tours can be done if something is deemed unhealthy for the format and thus needs to be looked at.

Oh, for Mix and Mega, I think this can apply somewhat as well for banning Mega Stones. So taking Kangaskhanite's ban, do we ban it on everything except Kangaskhan or do we just ban it entirely? For me, at least, it's pretty obvious, just ban Kangaskhanite. As you can tell, this can be applied to most, as I call them, Augmentation Metagames, or AMs for short. Basically, AMs are metagames that augment Pokemon in one or more ways, such as giving them new moves or abilities (or stat boosts/secondary typings along with new abilities, as the case may be in Mix and Mega) that they don't have access to normally. You ban the broken element, or else, going back to my banning the abusers argument, things will become broken and the issue will keep popping up. Do we keep up this whack a mole type game (banning the abusers) or do we just ban the broken element entirely? In this case, it would be better to just ban the move/ability entirely.
 
Last edited:
So yeah, any mon can have this meta specific change except [banlist].

Going back to the set example, if you have the original set (OU) and a set specific to mons that have been through the transformation (AAA additions), then the AAA set would be the combination of the two. You say we should only make changes on the AAA specific set while QT says we should make changes on the AAA set as a whole. I don't really have a problem with either point of view.

But there's this one part in the description of a meta that QT linked that I find a bit confusing.
Slaking and Regigigas are extremely powerful if allowed to have non-negative Abilities, and are thus usually banned in metas which would, by their own rules, provide them non-negative Abilities. They are not granted special accommodation to remain legal by virtue of being exempted from the OM's rules. (ie AAA doesn't keep them legal while denying them the core gimmick of the meta -it just bans them)
That seems to lean more towards QT's way of things than the other.

EDIT:
This is true. The problem with banning moves/abilities is that there's the issue of what to do regarding the Pokemon that learn the move normally. Going back to Thousand Arrows/Shift Gear for a bit, Thousand Arrows is not broken on Zygarde, but the move itself is broken. There lies the problem. Do we ban Thousand Arrows on everything except Zygarde, like it's always been done, or do we ban the move altogether, including banning it on Zygarde, even though it can learn it normally? Same goes for Shift Gear. Do we ban Shift Gear on everything except Klinklang, or do we just ban the move altogether, including Pokemon that learn the move normally, such as Klinklang? For me, it's obvious, the second option, as the way I see it, banning Thousand Arrows on everything except Zygarde (which we have been currently doing) is a complex ban to an extent, not a whole lot different from banning Blaziken if it has Speed Boost in OU.

This can also apply to metagames like AAA. So going back to my previous example, with the Protean ban, do we ban Protean on everything except Greninja or do we ban Protean entirely, including banning Greninja from Protean? Ideally, we would want to ban Protean, but some people would say that Protean Greninja isn't broken, but the way I see it, using a banned ability on a Pokemon that gets said banned ability normally is a loophole to gain the banned ability. For example, in AAA, Arena Trap is banned. However, you can use Dugtrio, even if it has Arena Trap, because it normally gets Arena Trap. I see this as a loophole and thus Arena Trap should be banned. By using this way of banning moves (for Sketchmons/STABmons) or abilities (for AAA), it also benefits the community, as suspect tours can be done if something is deemed unhealthy for the format and thus needs to be looked at.

Oh, for Mix and Mega, I think this can apply somewhat as well for banning Mega Stones. So taking Kangaskhanite's ban, do we ban if on everything except Kangaskhan or do we just ban it entirely?
Seems quite obvious to me that QT is saying we should ban the move on everything including zygarde. Idk why your post had to be so long thought.

You even seem to be supporting his point by saying that allowing a broken element on mons that get it normally is just a loophole.
 
Seems quite obvious to me that QT is saying we should ban the move on everything including zygarde. Idk why your post had to be so long thought.

You even seem to be supporting his point by saying that allowing a broken element on mons that get it normally is just a loophole.
I was trying to show how that argument could be applied to other metagames such as AAA.
 

EV

Banned deucer.
But there's this one part in the description of a meta that QT linked that I find a bit confusing.
That seems to lean more towards QT's way of things than the other.
How so? You can't ban half a Pokemon. If it's broken in the metagame, you ban it. Unlike Shift Gear, which can be limited by the premise of Sketchmons, individual Pokemon can't be. The banlist cannot include Slaking with native attacks only because that violates the metagame's "gimmick" (or rule). "You can teach every Pokemon Sketch once" is different than "You can teach every Pokemon almost any move." The gimmick is to allow the one-time Sketch, but the gimmick has no say over what's currently Sketchable--that's the job of the banlist.

Now, in the context of AAA where the Slaking example was born, access to abilities can and are curtailed when they break too many Pokemon. But only on Pokemon with the new found access (my reasons are stated in my posts above). Slaking is banned wholesale here because it's too good with too many abilities besides Truant. Limiting it to Truant would make sense under my philosophy*. However, AAA chose another limitation: ban the abilities on extraneous learners instead. Thus, Slaking is banned because an alternative doesn't exist.

*this route would also require many individual Pokemon limitations. For example, imagine STABmons or Sketchmons where we just listed every Pokemon that can't learn new moves rather than the moves that can't be learned by new Pokemon.

I'll have to pick apart QT's new post when I have more time.
 

Champion Leon

Banned deucer.
I'm looking at some of the OM threads last date of posting for what were popular OMs and see they are losing player bases and overall interest.

I would like to suggest making a separate thread area for all things Balanced Hackmons, Stabmons, Mix & Mega, and Cross Evolutions.

This would be similar to Monotype, and would move all of the Analysis Megathread, and OM-specific threads to their respective sections.

Also it would allow Creative Movesets to showcase other OMs beside the 4 aforementioned above.

I think BH and STABmons have been around for now 3+ generations and should be cemented as standalone sections.

This would allow actual analysis to be posted under the general area, similar to how Monotype has its own section and in it, individual analysis per Pokémon.

It just would remove the clutter, and expand space for other, less popular, but still active OMs that have should get attention such as AAA, and Sketchmons, as well as newer ones such as Automagic.

Anything Goes is another one that deserves a section, for a different reason, it is simply the tier above UBERS, and it would make sense to have a section out of the OM and where the general SM metagames are: SM Overused, UU, Ubers, etc. It just makes sense that a section for SM Anything Goes would be placed here, rather than in OM.

For the 4 OMs- By creating a separate section, where it would be listed just as Petmods, Monotype, OM Archive, and OM submissions is located, this would help organize the threads specifically related to a metagame, alleviate confusion for newer players wondering which games are popular enough to find a user base (by seeing Monotype has its own section and individual threads, they know it has a substantial level of popularity and users actually playing it). Lastly, it would also allow more sub-topics to be made so that they could flesh out the metagame itself.

Don't you agree having individual threads for, say per Pokémon for their individual Analysis would be much easier to read and find, than having to go through the Analysis Megathread and look for your favorite Pokémon's promoted set page by page?

Then people could also find and comment, say see specific BH announcements like a new ban on an ability, a suspect for a Pokémon, and see what news has happened based on Council votes etc.

I just would hate to see the brand new gen 7 OM have less players and activity than Gen 6, if all it takes is a bit more organization and promotion of these awesome OMs. As for promotions, once these new sections are launched and announced, you could have monthly tournaments and award winners and do Pokémon giveaways of some sort to promote the OM community into participating more. If things continue to slow down, especially as I have see with Mix and Mega, then OM will cease to have an audience.
 
Last edited:

Pikachuun

the entire waruda machine
I'm looking at some of the OM threads last date of posting for what were popular OMs and see they are losing player bases and overall interest.

I would like to suggest making a separate thread area for all things Balanced Hackmons, Stabmons, Mix & Mega, and Cross Evolutions.

This would be similar to Monotype, and would move all of the Analysis Megathread, and OM-specific threads to their respective sections.

Also it would allow Creative Movesets to showcase other OMs beside the 4 aforementioned above.

I think BH and STABmons have been around for now 3+ generations and should be cemented as standalone sections.

This would allow actual analysis to be posted under the general area, similar to how Monotype has its own section and in it, individual analysis per Pokémon.

It just would remove the clutter, and expand space for other, less popular, but still active OMs that have should get attention such as AAA, and Sketchmons, as well as newer ones such as Automagic.

Anything Goes is another one that deserves a section, for a different reason, it is simply the tier above UBERS, and it would make sense to have a section out of the OM and where the general SM metagames are: SM Overused, UU, Ubers, etc. It just makes sense that a section for SM Anything Goes would be placed here, rather than in OM.

For the 4 OMs- By creating a separate section, where it would be listed just as Petmods, Monotype, OM Archive, and OM submissions is located, this would help organize the threads specifically related to a metagame, alleviate confusion for newer players wondering which games are popular enough to find a user base (by seeing Monotype has its own section and individual threads, they know it has a substantial level of popularity and users actually playing it). Lastly, it would also allow more sub-topics to be made so that they could flesh out the metagame itself.

Don't you agree having individual threads for, say per Pokémon for their individual Analysis would be much easier to read and find, than having to go through the Analysis Megathread and look for your favorite Pokémon's promoted set page by page?

Then people could also find and comment, say see specific BH announcements like a new ban on an ability, a suspect for a Pokémon, and see what news has happened based on Council votes etc.

I just would hate to see the brand new gen 7 OM have less players and activity than Gen 6, if all it takes is a bit more organization and promotion of these awesome OMs. As for promotions, once these new sections are launched and announced, you could have monthly tournaments and award winners and do Pokémon giveaways of some sort to promote the OM community into participating more. If things continue to slow down, especially as I have see with Mix and Mega, then OM will cease to have an audience.
I can get where you're going at here, honestly, but I'm shaky about the idea. Really, if you want to give certain metas subforums like Monotype, BH and AG would be the best ones to pick judging by ladder activity. STABmons doesn't have a ladder anymore (i don't even see it on the sim), as popular as it was in gen 6, and forum presence seems to have died down by comparison to the others as well, so I don't see a reason for that. Really subforum OMs should be permanent ladders that have a huge, more active playerbase, I won't doubt that AAA is active but it's less active compared to the other two that I've listed. I still, as much as I'd like for it to happen, don't think BH and AG should get subforums yet, though.

So why not? Well to answer that question we have to ask: Why is Monotype a subforum anyway? Even those two metas, probably the most popular OMs besides Mono, still fall a ways below Monotype in terms of activity. I'd like to give special attention to the only 2 OMs with a room on PS right now being Monotype and AG. Anything Goes is, as expected for one, below OMs in general, but Monotype's activity surpasses that of the entire OM room as of this post. I think that should say a lot about why Mono has a subforum and none of the other OMs do. Hell, Monotype even has their own discord, but that's not really a valid argument since that came after the subforum, I guess.

As for your "Oh it's so difficult to find things you have to scroll through things" point, I don't really think this is a valid one, honestly.
Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 8.00.56 AM.png

The search bar lets you filter by forum to find a specific thread (I wanna find BH stuff, let's type in "Balanced Hackmons!"), and even lets you filter by thread to find a specific post in said thread (I wanna see if Mimikyu has an analysis in Sketchmons, let's type in "Mimikyu" in the analysis thread!). If a specific thread is on the first page, you could even just Ctrl + F.
OMs won't die if this change isn't implemented btw, sure they might get stale every so often but a new gen brings new changes, and new metas/tours always spice things up, we're gonna stay alive for a while.

My last, and final point about all of this that I truly believe ties my argument together:
>cross evolution
>subforum

lmao
i have nothing against the meta because it seems neat tho don't get me wrong but really?
 
Last edited:

Champion Leon

Banned deucer.
I said cross evolution because it seems to be replacing Mix and Mega with the number of postings and the sheer number of combinations. I know that is a recent OM as well, but it seems to be the Mix and Mega successor because MnM has such few combinations due to the limit of Mega Stones- for Cross-Evolution the activity on the thread is certainly higher as of recent, and people are excited about the banning of Sneasel and such.

I fear that MnM will be surely dead by the end of March- the metagame's council vote to only use stones currently released has prevented even the mascot on the OP from being used. Ninetendo's first distributions also don't speed things up because those 2 stones are actually banned since last generation, so who knows how long it will take for the metagame to get fun again... Nintendo just recently announced Stones will be distributed over 6 months. Does that include all? They didn't specify...

Can I ask what happened to STABmons? Why was it discontinued? Will other OMs be discontinued as well? That actually proves my point, a metagame as popular as STABmons last generation is literally non-existent this generation, only 3 months in.

Also another OM that I realize is dead is the original Hackmons, I know BH is more popular and always was, but this only furthers my point that some of the most established OM are falling by the wayside, so much so that many people didn't even notice and have forgotten how and when, (and more importantly why).

I agree Mix and Mega, as well as Cross Evolution, are low in user base, but at least for BH, and AG it would make sense, and wouldn't a section created, just like Monotype, actually improve activity, and clear up thread space from the General OM section?

Shouldn't AG at least be moved? It seems more like the Uber tier of Uber's metagame, and would make sense to be included in the SM section, similar to how SM UU is the tier below SM OU.
 
Last edited:
I said cross evolution because it seems to be replacing Mix and Mega with the number of postings and the sheer number of combinations. I know that is a recent OM as well, but it seems to be the Mix and Mega successor because MnM has such few combinations due to the limit of Mega Stones- for Cross-Evolution the activity on the thread is certainly higher as of recent, and people are excited about the banning of Sneasel and such.

I fear that MnM will be surely dead by the end of March- the metagame's council vote to only use stones currently released has prevented even the mascot on the OP from being used. Ninetendo's first distributions also don't speed things up because those 2 stones are actually banned since last generation, so who knows how long it will take for the metagame to get fun again... Nintendo just recently announced Stones will be distributed over 6 months. Does that include all? They didn't specify...

Can I ask what happened to STABmons? Why was it discontinued? Will other OMs be discontinued as well? That actually proves my point, a metagame as popular as STABmons last generation is literally non-existent this generation, only 3 months in.

Also another OM that I realize is dead is the original Hackmons, I know BH is more popular and always was, but this only furthers my point that some of the most established OM are falling by the wayside, so much so that many people didn't even notice and have forgotten how and when, (and more importantly why).

I agree Mix and Mega, as well as Cross Evolution, are low in user base, but at least for BH, and AG it would make sense, and wouldn't a section created, just like Monotype, actually improve activity, and clear up thread space from the General OM section?

Shouldn't AG at least be moved? It seems more like the Uber tier of Uber's metagame, and would make sense to be included in the SM section, similar to how SM UU is the tier below SM OU.
Cross evolution has always been popular on forums, but in practice this is almost entirely theorymon; on average, it has less than 10 battles a day, and most of the times it goes over is repeat matches between people. Furthermore, it cannot actually replace Mix and Mega, as it uses nicknames to work.

This was not a decision of the mix and mega council. Additionally, MnM is actually almost 20 times as popular as sketchmons, and just under 7 times as popular as AAA.

STABmons was discontinued because of low ladder plays; thus far, however, sketchmons is worse. OMs will be replaced when and if better alternatives become available.

This is also untrue; classic hackmons didn't die from lack of use, it was excised. There was still a massive fanbase (and may stil be one), and it's ineligibility for returning is not because of its lack of plays.

Mix and Mega is actually somewhat more active than AG on forums, both in analyses and in content: all of the recent AG posts prior to Hunter's viability nomination for zygarde were rates for bad teams that were posted there. BH is somewhat more active, but well over half of that is shitposts.

AG being here is a clerical decision from the higher ups; it's not up to OM leaders nor AG leaders to make it no longer an OM.



Overall, this post just seems really misinformed? I mean, maybe you're going somewhere with this, but this is stuff you can check.
 

Champion Leon

Banned deucer.
I was referring to Sketchmons and AAA as being less popular than MnM, BH, Etc. and said that if we separated the MnM and BH then it would allow less popular OMs like Sketchmons and AAA as well as newer ones like Automagic to grow, as there would be less other threads to compete with in OMs general thread area.

As for Cross Evolution, I meant replace the concept in popularity, giving a base Pokémon a stat, ability, and Type change based on a base Pokémon getting the exclusivity changes on another (Mega or evolved) form of a different Pokémon.

What do you mean by excised? I'm not challenging you, I even googled the word but the definition said it has to do with taxes. If you believe it may still have a massive playerbase then why is it gone?

I don't know how to check plays per day, and other statistics, and I didn't mean to come across as anything but aware that there is, in general, less activity on gen 7 OMs than there were in Gen6 prior to November. Just being a fairly active user, I saw the last post dates of many threads growing over 1 week old or at least 5 days, and it seems kind of like the Gen 6 were usually always posted in every other day.

I thought separation between the more popular such as BH from the less popular like Sketchmons, would allow people to see BH at the top of the section like Monotype is, and promote a larger user base, which in turn would allow users who go to the General OM Section to see less popular ones, like Sketchmons and AAA and find it due to a lesser amount of threads.

I've also read posts on BH saying it is less fun than Gen 6 due to mechanics (gale wings, Dark type immunity to Prankster, etc.) and new abilities like Psychic Surge removing viability from previous strategies.

I was simply trying to acknowledge if we organize the threads it will likely bring more attention and help overall.
 
I was referring to Sketchmons and AAA as being less popular than MnM, BH, Etc. and said that if we separated the MnM and BH then it would allow less popular OMs like Sketchmons and AAA as well as newer ones like Automagic to grow, as there would be less other threads to compete with in OMs general thread area.

As for Cross Evolution, I meant replace the concept in popularity, giving a base Pokémon a stat, ability, and Type change based on a base Pokémon getting the exclusivity changes on another (Mega or evolved) form of a different Pokémon.

What do you mean by excised? I'm not challenging you, I even googled the word but the definition said it has to do with taxes. If you believe it may still have a massive playerbase then why is it gone?

I don't know how to check plays per day, and other statistics, and I didn't mean to come across as anything but aware that there is, in general, less activity on gen 7 OMs than there were in Gen6 prior to November. Just being a fairly active user, I saw the last post dates of many threads growing over 1 week old or at least 5 days, and it seems kind of like the Gen 6 were usually always posted in every other day.

I thought separation between the more popular such as BH from the less popular like Sketchmons, would allow people to see BH at the top of the section like Monotype is, and promote a larger user base, which in turn would allow users who go to the General OM Section to see less popular ones, like Sketchmons and AAA and find it due to a lesser amount of threads.

I've also read posts on BH saying it is less fun than Gen 6 due to mechanics (gale wings, Dark type immunity to Prankster, etc.) and new abilities like Psychic Surge removing viability from previous strategies.

I was simply trying to acknowledge if we organize the threads it will likely bring more attention and help overall.
For both of the first two, I feel as though this probably isn't the case, but I don't know the future so maybe this would work?

Excise: to cut out surgically. The reason that it is not a ladder despite possibly still having a fan base is that ladder inactivity wasn't why it was removed, so having that won't bring it back.

http://www.smogon.com/stats/

I feel once more as though this is unlikely.

Speaking for myself, and from what I've seen at least a sizable minority of the BH player base, that the problems with BH is that it has been and remains horribly unbalanced, and there doesn't seem like it will change any time soon.
 

G-Luke

Sugar, Spice and One For All
is a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Ok well I guess nevermind the whole thing. I'm surprised organization of threads would not be seen as helpful.
The point is: Monotype is such a massive OM that has a cult and fanbase arguably bigger than Other Metagames itself. Keeping Monotype in the main forum actually held it back, as you can see it has developed and diversified quite well. Monotype has more plays than some official metagames. Thats a testament to its popularity and success.
 
One other thing that would really improve other metagames is more active moderation. Obviously I'm looking at the BH threads in particular, but even like AG could use some more post moderation; yes, it was able to be brought back on topic, but metagame threads shouldn't be somebody's personal RMT dump or whatever that was. There's obviously ways to go too far, so it would require some care, but preventing what can only be described as shitposts should be, in my opinion, considered a positive end result.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top