I tried to read all of the posts in the thread before posting myself to see some good arguments, and holy crap was that a mistake. There
are some good arguments made by a few people, but the majority of this thread is pretty awful.
As for my opinion, I'll be honest, I'm a bit torn on the issue. We cannot totally eliminate luck from the metagame, as by doing such so many mechanics need to change that the game is no longer Pokemon. However, we need to look at the SwagPlay combination and see what differentiates it from other luck-based moves and abilities.
The main differences are the chance of being negatively affected, the impact of bad luck and whether the user or opponent is more affected by it.
- Confusion has a 50% chance of negatively affecting a Pokemon per turn. Full Paralysis only occurs 25% of the time, while most imperfect accuracy moves have between a 5% (elemental fangs,) and 30% chance (Focus Blast,) of missing. Also keep in mind that, when combined with Prankster, the opponent only gets to avert risking that 50% chance if they switch on the turn they use Swagger (or otherwise use Magic Bounce or something similar.) Without priority, confusion moves only force that chance upon the opponent if they cannot switch or are slower. If using an imperfect accuracy confusion move the chance is further lowered depending on the move's accuracy and the confusion chance.
- When your Pokemon hurts itself in confusion, it not only loses HP, but gives the opponent a free turn. Swagger amplifies this by doubling the confusion damage and allowing for Foul Play to deal double damage. In many cases it only takes one bad confusion roll to leave one of your Pokemon crippled or KO'd. While Paralysis also has the chance to take a turn from you, it not only does it less often, but doesn't deal self-damage. You could argue that Infatuation activates as common as Confusion, but it is harder to inflict (due to genders,) and also doesn't deal self-damage. While missing a Hydro Pump can be game-changing, it's dependent on when it happens.
- One major argument against SwagPlay is that it forces the coinflip on the opponent instead of it being entirely on you. If you run Focus Blast or Stone Edge, that is entirely your choice, and they're reliable enough that the opponent should be ready for them. Swagger forces the opponent to take that chance instead when they could build their team in such a way as to minimize the impact of luck. Turning the game into a gamble isn't competitive.
Anyone that's arguing that SwagPlay is just like other luck-based elements is basically wrong.
Now, there's the issue of countering it. Let me start by saying that suggesting something as an answer to itself is ridiculous. If something is needed to stop itself, it shouldn't be part of the game. There are other answers to the strategy, of course, but they're really niche. Suggesting that every team contain an Own Tempo or Magic Bounce user is very limiting. I think this part's been discussed to death, but the main thing to take here is that good answers are both few in number and low in quality. It has been brought up that the strategy is hurt by switching, but I have an issue with this. While this will stop the opponent from getting Swagger to do anything, it does not stop SwagPlay users from using Foul Play, Substitute or Thunder Wave. For those of you who've suggested switch-stalling something's Swagger PP; how many of you have actually
done that?
Now, I'm not the kind of person to suggest bans at the drop of a hat, but I don't see how banning this strategy hurts the metagame at all. Some would like to defend variety, but the metagame still has plenty of variety without SwagPlay teams. If anything, not having to worry about having an answer to the team type is more important. For those who hate the idea of not being able to use the strategy, I need to wonder why you're so hell-bent on using such an inconsistent strategy. It's not like you're at a loss for actually good strategies that work consistently.
I think SwagPlay primarily serves to create a metagame in which winning is not based on skill, and as such a metagame where winning is not the primary goal. A metagame in which you do not play to win is not a metagame at all. I'm of the opinion that
banning Swagger is absolutely sufficient. It doesn't impair any non-luck-based strategies, and I don't think that Pranksters nor the singular Pokemon are unhealthy for the metagame. While Swagger on non-Prankster Pokemon isn't as big an issue, it's still potentially frustrating (and I can't imagine a serious player being impeded by the ban.)
(Side note: If you reply to this message in a non-intelligent manner, do not expect a reply back. Otherwise I'm all-ears as far as conversation and debate goes.)