I'm not suggesting that a precedent for move/ability bans hasn't been set. My saying that something like stealth rock has never been considered for a suspect test isn't for the reason that there isn't a precedent for move bans. Stealth rock and u-turn, unlike OHKO moves, have zero luck factor, but are still debatably unhealthy for the metagame. They're a completely different monster than OHKO moves, and to say "well, we've banned moves before, and since we're not testing SR/u-turn, it's definitely because they're totally ok and there's certainly not any other reason" is being presumptious.
Is this more clear? I never said there was no precedent. Pwnemon already summed up what I was trying to say.This is a complete contradiction.
"I'm not saying a precedent for move/ability bans hasn't been set."
"...there isn't a precedent for move bans."
If a precedent has been set, then it exists. If you intended some other meaning by your post, it is unclear.
Excadrill and Blaziken's case doesn't quite parallel with Garchomp's. Garchomp's ability, Sand Veil, was banned so Garchomp, who many considered wouldn't be a problem without Sand Veil, was effectively put in Ubers until it had another ability, Rough Skin. Excadrill and Blaziken themselves were banned because their abilities themselves were not broken/uncompetitive, but that they were able to abuse those abilities in a way that was broken. I'll stop discussing this now since complex bans aren't the purpose of the OP, but I just wanted to clear that up.Can we ask the council on their opinion to retest Excadrill and Blaziken? Is it because the current metagame threats take precedent over retesting banned pokemon or retesting them must require testing their broken abilities as well (Sand Rush, Speed Boost)?
We are doing pretty much our last suspect tests atm with landorus/keldeo. Excadrill, blaziken and friends will most likely be retested in gen 6 though.Can we ask the council on their opinion to retest Excadrill and Blaziken? Is it because the current metagame threats take precedent over retesting banned pokemon or retesting them must require testing their broken abilities as well (Sand Rush, Speed Boost)?
This is silly as no matter how much you want to twist it, if Garchomp didn't have sand veil as an ability, sand veil would never (well, not in the foreseeable future) have been banned.We didnt allowed Rough Skin garchomp. Sand veil was simply banned under evasion clause which made garchomp available with an alternative ability.
yes we can embrace this and bring back blaze blaziken if we're willing to unilaterally ban speed boost on all pokemon ¬_¬I didn't say that, I said Garchomp with Rough Skin was tested before he was OK'd, obviously the ban on Sand Viel was an ability ban:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3471600
They could have just simply said Garchomp is banned the same reason why Excadrill is (because it has one broken ability), but this new approach opened lots of good doors that we should embrace.
oops i did mean tests, thank you for pointing that out. I'm really not unhappy with what's been banned or not banned given the suspects we've had, but i wish we'd had different suspects.First of all, are you talking about bans or tests? Your post says bans, but if you are unhappy with the lack of bans, then your frustration should lie with the voters, and the onus is on you and those who share your opinion to convince the voting majority that these things are broken. This thread is an appeal to the council, though.
I don't remember any of those being OU suspects? (Unless it was during BW tests 1-5, where like everything was a suspect lol). And I agree, as I said in my last post, that there has been some precedent for testing competitive moves and abilities. To stop beating around the bush: I just wish the council would be less reluctant to do it again (with Drizzle and Drought).If you are talking about tests, then I disagree...because Drizzle, Drought, Sandstream, and Shadow Tag were all suspects in the past. There is no precedent being broken, and I therefore don't think the council is refusing to test these things out of a reluctance to break precedent.
Our metagames are no joking matter :jump::jump::jump::jump::jump:Imo Excadrill wasn't as horrible, the metagame was funnier with him imo, i'd rather deal with it than a U-turn Landorus+Ttar+Keldeo HP bug team tbh lol.
Regarding Excadrill and Blaziken, is it a "the metagame would be better / this allows a good precedent for unbanning things" or "I wanna use Excadrill and Blaziken" sort of thing? Because I don't really see the point in adding another complex ban, which some people are against, just for something as subjective as "it'd be funny to use them". It could be interesting to have them back, but just how much would Blaziken contribute? Excadrill would be interesting as a spinner, but other than that, just how well would he do in the current metagame? Weaknesses to Water-, Fighting-, and Fire- types moves, not to mention a fairly poor 88 base Speed, mean it won't contribute all that much, in my opinion, in the current metagame. IMO, it'd just set a shaky sort of precedent.Can we ask the council on their opinion to retest Excadrill and Blaziken? Is it because the current metagame threats take precedent over retesting banned pokemon or retesting them must require testing their broken abilities as well (Sand Rush, Speed Boost)?
So you want to randomly take things out the metagame and then decide if we like it or not? Then vote on it? I don't get it. I don't get this thread. What are we doing here? If you feel that something is broken then make a case for it. There is no reason to rattle off random moves like SR, pursuit and u-turn without giving any explanation. This is an extremely low quality thread. This post and others is the reason why we have a council in the first place.... The freely ban anything attitude is not going to create a better metagame. TBH it is too late to create a good OU metagame because we already created an indefinitely (weather is never going to be tested again) unstable metagame based on team matchups. If nothing is broken and the broken things arent going to be tested why should their be a suspect test ? After keldeo and landorus-i gets banned which pokemon is going to go next? After that? Then after that? When do we stop banning or unbanning things? Suspect test should be carefully thought out not a game where we just randomly choose which metagame we like best.I am trying to figure out how this thread derailed into a complex banning discussion...
Anyway, I agree with MikeDawg's sentiment, I feel that we need a swifter suspect process and that Pokemon should be banned a bit more 'freely.' I don't want our meta to be a ban hammer fest though, so I do think a certain reasonable level of conservatism is good. In particular, I think we should have a very active suspect testing process that isn't directly connected with banning things, and more aimed at looking at what the metagame would look like with X banned or unbanned, without us immediately going to the voting booths. I am thinking of a sort of 2 step process, where a suspect metagame is swiftly tested out and voted on to see if it is acceptable, and only then do we go into an official suspect round.
Remind me how many times Excadrill came up on the chopping block, before it was finally beheadedIf you are talking about tests, then I disagree...because Drizzle, Drought, Sandstream, and Shadow Tag were all suspects in the past.
No one said anything about suspecting/banning things randomly. We would only be suspecting things that are debatably detrimental to the health of the metagame. The point of this thread is to get the point across that banning pokemon (which has been our primary focus), is simply not enough anymore to create a competitive metagame. Moves, Items, Abilities, etc should be given equal attention to pokemon when it comes to suspecting, since clearly banning mostly pokemon hasn't allowed us to even approach a desirable metagame (assuming a metagame where skill is the most significant determining factor in who wins any given match is desirable, of course).So you want to randomly take things out the metagame and then decide if we like it or not? Then vote on it? I don't get it. I don't get this thread. What are we doing here? If you feel that something is broken then make a case for it. There is no reason to rattle off random moves like SR, pursuit and u-turn without giving any explanation. This is an extremely low quality thread. This post and others is the reason why we have a council in the first place.... The freely ban anything attitude is not going to create a better metagame. TBH it is too late to create a good OU metagame because we already created an indefinitely (weather is never going to be tested again) unstable metagame based on team matchups. If nothing is broken and the broken things arent going to be tested why should their be a suspect test ? After keldeo and landorus-i gets banned which pokemon is going to go next? After that? Then after that? When do we stop banning or unbanning things? Suspect test should be carefully thought out not a game where we just randomly choose which metagame we like best.
Well personally I don't want them in my team(s) but I'm sure someone will find uses for them, even in OU. Blaziken with Blaze and sun support sounds interesting to say the least.Regarding Excadrill and Blaziken, is it a "the metagame would be better / this allows a good precedent for unbanning things" or "I wanna use Excadrill and Blaziken" sort of thing?
Responses in bold.So you want to randomly take things out the metagame and then decide if we like it or not? Then vote on it? I don't get it.
I agree here, "suspect metagames" would be really confusing and just pick and choose.
I don't get this thread. What are we doing here? If you feel that something is broken then make a case for it.
He's not arguing changing the suspect process, just looking at more unusual suspects.
There is no reason to rattle off random moves like SR, pursuit and u-turn without giving any explanation.
He's using these as examples for more unusual bans because they have all been brought up at one point or another by a decent amount of the playerbase.
This is an extremely low quality thread.
Plenty of people in this thread would disagree with you.
This post and others is the reason why we have a council in the first place.... The freely ban anything attitude is not going to create a better metagame.
If you read the OP, you would see he was not arguing for ban everything at all.
TBH it is too late to create a good OU metagame because we already created an indefinitely (weather is never going to be tested again) unstable metagame based on team matchups. If nothing is broken and the broken things arent going to be tested why should their be a suspect test ? After keldeo and landorus-i gets banned which pokemon is going to go next? After that? Then after that? When do we stop banning or unbanning things? Suspect test should be carefully thought out not a game where we just randomly choose which metagame we like best.
Exactly what authority do you have to say that with? Your whole post makes us sound like a bunch of butthurt newbies who've never played competitive pokemon in our lives. Your attitude is very poor, and you seem to have been opposed to the whole idea of this thread from the get-go.It is enough...
Evidence to back my above statement. No one in this thread is arguing either of those points. You are taking two small examples and blowing up them up as if they're the basis of his argument, and at the same time degrading everyone else for "entertaining" this thread which you, one person out of most people here who are at least impartial, say to be of "extremely low quality." Also thought I should add that the basis of both your posts is mainly your opinion of the people here and what they are saying. For you, in the two posts you have made, the idea of less conservative testing=noobs crying for everything they dont like banned without any reason.You lost to a pursuit tyranitar and now you want pursuit banned? You got out predicted and got u-turned on?
It is enough... We don't need to ban moves (yeah i know ohko clause)... Why would you ban u-turn and pursuit? Do we need a pursuit clause? If the pokemon that uses these moves are overpowered then the system in place will ban those pokemon. Abilities have already been banned.... items have been banned... so what is the point again? You lost to a pursuit tyranitar and now you want pursuit banned? You got out predicted and got u-turned on? It is just unbelievable the stuff people come up with. If you have a problem then gather some good battlers that think like you do and make a logical thread pleading your case (like SR but that didn't really work) so you can maybe get a suspect test. The problem is so many pokemon are so good that it would take a decade to ban everything down to the way the end of DPPT was. But it would help if we didnt allow strong things to become even stronger on purpose.No one said anything about suspecting/banning things randomly. We would only be suspecting things that are debatably detrimental to the health of the metagame. The point of this thread is to get the point across that banning pokemon (which has been our primary focus), is simply not enough anymore to create a competitive metagame. Moves, Items, Abilities, etc should be given equal attention to pokemon when it comes to suspecting, since clearly banning mostly pokemon hasn't allowed us to even approach a desirable metagame (assuming a metagame where skill is the most significant determining factor in who wins any given match is desirable, of course).
The only abilities that have been banned are those that have been clearly uncompetitive and related to evasion. The only item that has been banned is soul dew. The only moves (in OU) that have been banned fall under the OHKO clause. Anything else that exists in the metagame is completely incomparable to those things, and all the OP is saying is that we should be more willing to look more closely at other facets of the metagame that might be worth suspecting. The reason for this is that banning generally only Pokemon has not yielded any significant, positive results. This isn't the thread to point fingers and discuss at length specifically what might or might not be suspect-worthy, so I'm not going to debate you about u-turn, SR, etc.It is enough... We don't need to ban moves (yeah i know ohko clause)... Why would you ban u-turn and pursuit? Do we need a pursuit clause? If the pokemon that uses these moves are overpowered then the system in place will ban those pokemon. Abilities have already been banned.... items have been banned... so what is the point again? You lost to a pursuit tyranitar and now you want pursuit banned? You got out predicted and got u-turned on? It is just unbelievable the stuff people come up with. If you have a problem then gather some good battlers that think like you do and make a logical thread pleading your case (like SR but that didn't really work) so you can maybe get a suspect test. The problem is so many pokemon are so good that it would take a decade to ban everything down to the way the end of DPPT was. But it would help if we didnt allow strong things to become even stronger on purpose.
This is obvious. I said that aside from moody, a clearly uncompetitive ability, no others have been banned. Swift swim + drizzle being banned is a different issue and has nothing to do with what I said. You should seriously take a look at ad think about the things you're about to post before you actually post them. You've consistently done nothing but derail and detract from the discussion. It's not just this thread either.swift swim with drizzle is banned
edit: what that means is those two abilities are banned together
Organization Member XIV: I was just showing that all abilities are on the table when it comes to suspect test.
What did you say? Because It is not a different issue. Those abilities are banned together because they are form an un-competitive duo. The point is everything has always been on the table. If something is breaking the metagame then it gets banned. The reason why it seems that smogon is conservative is because no one can come up with good reasons why things should be banned. The SR arguments ultimately failed because you guys didn't bring up good enough points for the council to put it on priority. If you bring up something else maybe you will have a better chance. No one really knows what a good BW2 metagame looks or feels like... So the instincts of just suspecting everything that moves is understandable. But it is not the correct way of creating a good metagame. Lando and keldeo will probably get the boot.. but then where do we go from there? Are we really in a position where we can just start banning random moves? If you are gonna say "lets ban moves" and then give examples i have a right to dispute them. I like to argue in absolutes not theory.This is obvious. I said that aside from moody, a clearly uncompetitive ability, no others have been banned. Swift swim + drizzle being banned is a different issue and has nothing to do with what I said.
What did you say? Because It is not a different issue. Those abilities are banned together because they are form an un-competitive duo. The point is everything has always been on the table. If something is breaking the metagame then it gets banned. The reason why it seems that smogon is conservative is because no one can come up with good reasons why things should be banned. The SR arguments ultimately failed because you guys didn't bring up good enough points for the council to put it on priority. If you bring up something else maybe you will have a better chance. No one really knows what a good BW2 metagame looks or feels like... So the instincts of just suspecting everything that moves is understandable. But it is not the correct way of creating a good metagame. Lando and keldeo will probably get the boot.. but then where do we go from there? Are we really in a position where we can just start banning random moves? If you are gonna say "lets ban moves" and then give examples i have a right to dispute them. I like to argue in absolutes not theory.
why post this if you don't have anything meaningful to say? lol you