Two arbitrary debate points cause I'm bored

[Lavos]

If a 'balanced metagame is the end of it', then I think we are at the end. Regardless of what you have to say about BW2, it is a balanced metagame, in which case it should stay that way, whether a group of people like it or not.

okay the second part where you agree that we need to create a balanced metagame until the majority is satisfied pretty much proves our point. however you commit a severe logical fallacy right here by claiming that regardless of what we have to say about bw2, it is a balanced metagame.

stop right there

look at what you just posted...your own personal opinion about how "balanced" the metagame is, lacking any justification. and alongside this frankly silly line of text you're claiming that our opinions on the metagame hold no weight? at least we justify our opinions, which you fail to do.

and btw, if you think the metagame is balanced and we don't, why not hold some more suspect tests? if it's "balanced" like you say it is, then anything we suspect will inevitably stay ou, and if it's not, then we're right and things will continue to be banned until we eventually arrive at a truly balanced metagame. there's no flaw in reasoning here; it logically holds true that if we continue to ban the broken stuff, then eventually there won't be any broken stuff left and we'll be at this balanced metagame that we all supposedly desire. so the only reason you would oppose more suspect tests is if you were afraid that you weren't right, that things in the current metagame are still broken and will inevitably be banned if tested...and coincidentally, that's the exact postulation that we are supporting and you are attempting to shoot down.

it's become very clear to me that those who oppose bans simply believe that the metagame right now is "good enough" and have adopted the mentality that we don't need to change any more because it's too hard or it will spoil our precious "good enough" metagame. in other words:

basically all these posts are saying

[18:17] <yee> 'nah man too much trouble to deal with fuck bw"
[18:17] <yee> "just let it sit"

that mentality, however, gets us nowhere. if we want a better metagame then it's clear what the solution is: suspect test things until we arrive at a point where all the broken stuff that people complain about no longer exists (or at least no longer exists to such a painfully extreme degree).

 

[PureQuestion]

Rayquaza is way too powerful for the standard metagame imo.

He's bulky enough that he can come in on a resisted attack and take minimal damage, and then what do you do? Everything you switch in risks being OHKOed or severely damaged by Rayquaza. Even the pokemon that are supposed to "check" him. And if you sacrifice a pokemon and try to revenge him, your opponent can just switch out. The game would probably just be Rayquaza + a bunch of pokemon that do reasonably well against Rayquaza on every team.

Are you kidding me. That was obviously a joke.

Moving on...

I have to say, I'm pretty new to this whole pokemon thing, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that this is easily the most controversial metagame. Or maybe it's not, hard to say with how people tend to act. Honestly the arguments are getting to the point where I'm wondering why drizzle hasn't been suspected just to stop the completely endless complaints.

 

[Memphis Grizzly]

that mentality, however, gets us nowhere. if we want a better metagame then it's clear what the solution is: suspect test things until we arrive at a point where all the broken shit that people complain about no longer exists (or at least no longer exists to such a painfully extreme degree).

Alright, so if we "were" to start going suspect testing happy exactly when would we call it a day? Till we reach Little Cup perhaps (sarcasm). Do you have an exact format as to what a "balanced meta game" is?

If team match is so "extreme" I'd like to hear what in the minds of the pro-ban group would refer to a balanced number to team match. So if I run into Sun+Duggy with my T-tar team I'm out of luck, but I'll easily take a Weather less team correct? So I win 1 and lose 1. Sounds like a fair trade off. The players wanting to "balance" team match up only want a meta where they'll be guaranteed wins; regardless of what they are carrying, but also don't factor in hax that is ever present that will cost even a team with the advantage to lose. Team match up=hax either you have the right team or you don't it's the cost for playing such team.

 

[MMII]

I'm wondering why drizzle hasn't been suspected just to stop the completely endless complaints.

Funnily enough, it has already been suspect tested. (Back in early BW1 with all the other weathers, iirc)

 

[Nachos]

i wasn't aware that a balanced metagame was one where games are decided on matchup and matchup alone a good portion of the time [yes, matchup has always existed, no, it has not always been this extreme and it never should be, yes, anyone who tries to deny this is kidding themselves or arguing for the sake of arguing]

matchup alone? yeah I admit I do complain about matchup occassionally but to say it is all based on matchup alone is extreme. plus, as more and more pokemon are added, matchup is always going to be a bigger problem, scapegoating weather is not going to solve a problem that requires a big discussion based on how we're going to move forward with regards to the increasing matchup and power levels. with regards to the current day, the fact that there's many many good sweepers in OU right now (and banning them all will just lead to others taking their place) affects matchup more than anything, and they don't need to be reliant on weather either.

right, but it's not broken or unhealthy for the meta.

I was describing why there was a reason to use sand rather than just 'it beats rain and sun'.

when there are more mons of course there will be a larger OU tier... and you're kidding yourself if you don't think weather restricts you in terms of options of defending against it [if you're abusing it then sure you can get creative or whatever, there are a million things that abuse weather].

The biggest threat of the day will always restrict teambuilding, such as the dragonsteel DPP metagame example from before. I'll also refer to my first post in that it is certain powerhouses themselves that restrict teambuilding more than weather. You want an example? Landorus doesn't need any weather and yet it is probably the best pokemon in OU right now, hence the increased Latias usage, despite the fact it's Tyranitar bait.

look at what you just posted...your own personal opinion about how "balanced" the metagame is, lacking any justification. and alongside this retarded line of text you're claiming that our opinions on the metagame hold no weight? at least we justify our opinions, which you fail to do.

I think this is more of an attack due to me calling out your friend than it is a point, but ok. I hold a similar opinion to undisputed in that the weathers balance each other out, and while I'm not 100% satisfied with OU as it stands, I don't think banning weather is the source of all of our problems. Oh and also, I didn't go into indepth on my opinion about weather because I'm focusing on the first point about whether or not we should consider the future metagame when he consider tiering judgements.

and btw, if you think the metagame is balanced and we don't, why not hold some more suspect tests, hmm? if it's "balanced" like you say it is, then anything we suspect will inevitably stay ou, and if it's not, then we're right and things will continue to be banned until we eventually arrive at a truly balanced metagame. there's no flaw in reasoning here; it logically holds true that if we continue to ban the broken shit, then eventually there won't be any broken shit left and we'll be at this balanced metagame that we all supposedly desire.

I am pretty sure I heard this similar argument made a couple of years back with regards to DPP. and yet despite having this final 'balanced metagame', increasing numbers of people don't seem to be enjoying it as much as they used to do they? now maybe I'm wrong there, but I see people who say they enjoyed the 'broken DPP' a lot more than the 'balanced DPP', maybe you might know a few of them.

so the only reason you would oppose more suspect tests is if you were afraid that you weren't right, that things in the current metagame are still broken and will inevitably be banned if tested...and what a coincidence, that's the exact postulation that we are supporting and you are attempting to shoot down.

I am pretty sure I have not said anywhere that I oppose further suspect tests, but I appreciate you putting the words into my mouth.

the flaws in your reasoning are basically insurmountable so at this point i'd urge you to join the correct side. it's become very clear to me that those who oppose bans simply believe that the metagame right now is "good enough" and have adopted the mentality that we don't need to change any more because it's too hard or it will spoil our precious "good enough" metagame. in other words ... that mentality, however, gets us nowhere.

ah yes, way to shit on everyone who thinks opposite to you by saying we're too lazy to want to change anything. oh yeah by the way, that's 53% of us when it comes to weather. who's claiming who's opinions hold no weight, hmm?

 

[Aldaron]

Alright, since some of you have decided to respond, I'll respond in kind. Also, this took a fuckload of time...damn my impulses.

Can you elaborate on the first discussion point? From what I understand, you mean something like we shouldn't ban Keldeo now, because it's only broken in Rain, and therefore we shouldn't ban Keldeo now with the expectation of Rain being banned in the future? I don't agree with banning / not-banning with regard to the future, it just induces unnecessary arguments and theorymon. Ban what's broken now and only now, and just make sure the suspect process is flexible and fast enough to bring stuff back / ban it if future changes affect it's viability in the metagame.

What I mean is should I take theorymon about potential cause / effect in future metagames into account when deciding policy for the current one. For the most generic example, if something is potentially (but not definitely, let's say a 50/50 thing) broken right now, but banning it will very probably (theorymon obviously) break 2 or 3 things that are not currently broken now, should I take that future theorymon into account when deciding how to deal with the current suspect?

You example is a little different from what I meant, as it is more a should we decide current policy based on what future policy will be. I meant should I decide current policy based on what might happen in the future, not necessarily what will happen policy wise.

As for your second point, it sounds basically like you feel the same way as me about this meta; that the metagame might be technically balanced (in terms of, no standard OU team or mon is broken, although Landorus arguably is), but it's still rubbish. Stealth Rock, Rain, and Sun basically combine to make our current meta the least fun to play and teambuild for I've experienced. I can't see an easier solution than en masse suspect tests; suspect Rain and Sun at once, for instance, so neither will be broken in the absence of the other and we can get a good picture of what the metagame would be like without them.

I don't actually think it is "rubbish." I'm mostly ok with it, I just wished I could somehow maximize the ability to prepare for most of the metagame with one set of 6 pokemon. I like team match up influencing the outcome of a battle, not determining it.

The first point is something that I've never had to consider, since I'm barely a junior member of the site, but I think unless the staff decided to ramp up their pace to make the suspect process ridiculously fast and efficient, you absolutely have to theorymon about the future. A common train of thought (not my own or the truth, just a trend I've noticed among users over a long period of time) is that the OU Council has been so hesitant to ban Drizzle (or Drought) despite their lo-risk/hi-reward strategies because of how fundamentally that would change the metagame.

That might be part of the thought process, but the main issue is that the council has never thought Drizzle was broken enough on its own to ban.

The tiers themselves, just the usage stats, not even talking about strategy yet, would undergo a MASSIVE change in that first month alone, because so many Pokemon live and die by Drizzle. Darmanitan and Victini would absolutely rise to OU, free to abuse the most powerful non-Uber attacks in the game. Tornadus (who just rose to OU this month if I remember correctly), Gastrodon, and perhaps Toxicroak would all drop, possibly past UU.

I'm not personally worried about big change; if change happens, it happens. If we have to speed up the process to deal with it, I'm ok with that too.

Only going to comment on the first point.

It's good that you've looked into the future for judgement calls is a positive thing. There's no reason to make a decision if it looks like the decision would only make a negative progression in the end result metagame, even if it would resolve an issue in the current metagame. The converse of the previous statement would also be true. I honestly don't feel comfortable with the idea of people who don't look to the future and theorymon on the results of their decision to make a suspect vote. Nobody's theorymon is perfect, but at least everyone should make an attempt to theorymon what the result of the ban would be and make a judgement call whether the metagame would, in the end, get better or worse from the decision.

One example I can pull is the Genesect ban. At least I felt when he was put up for suspect test, it was painfully obvious his ban would result in a worse metagame immediately after from becoming a Tornadus-T spamfest... and that's exactly what happened. It's one of those things you have to look far in the future into, seeing what bans a ban could help cause, and if the end result of all those bans would end in a more balanced metagame. Basically theorymonning towards the current metagame at Genesect times to try and make decisions. The converse would be true for an unbanning suspect test, of course.

Sorry if 2AM me typed up something that didn't make sense btw

Ok, so then I'd like to propose George Elliot's example to you, since you seem ok with using theorymon about the future metagame to decide policy. What about "theorymon" about assumed future policy? If Keldeo is broken now, but, hint hint wink wink we believe we are banning Drizzle soon, should I bother suspecting Keldeo now?

Don't have much time, so I'll only respond to the first point.

Not so long ago, I believed that future theorymon was something we should ignore simply because we have no idea what a metagame would look like 2 months down the line post-suspect and for that reason alone, not decide the future of the game we play based on what some people thought would happen. Plus, and on an almost completely unrelated point, I thought we'd go back and retest things that we thought were once Uber in the new, different metagame anyway, which doesn't seem to be happening now.

Recently though, I've sorta started to lean the other way. Now, I will say that I find the big philosophical posts in the big suspect threads about what will happen to the metagame if X gets banned quite annoying, as they tend to be wrote by people just looking to boost their post count, but I have seen theories by well known players that have made me have a think. I think taking the future metagame into account is something we should be considering if we ban rain (and or sun/sand). Let's look at history here...a next to near weatherless game is going to absolutely dominated by dragons, not to mention your usual Gen 5 steroid pokemon. I don't think that's an unreasonable prediction to make, but I don't think we can realistically go any further than that. I don't see why we should lead ourselves into more work to clean up a metagame that has a good chance of being terrible.

more later

Yea, I'm starting to lean towards it is ok to use theorymon to decide current policy, particularly because I would prefer to minimize the suspect test count. Also, I tend to agree that a Drizzle-less / Drought-less meta will be Dragons / Gen 5 steroid mons dominated, leading to further suspect tests. My question to you d you think a metagame with Drizzle / Drought / Landorus-I / Latios / Kyurem-B / Terrakion (just an arbitrary combination of those mons) banned would still be terrible? I understand that it might terrible in the middle of the tests, but would it still be terrible after all that?

Here is another question. Would you agree that battling and team building are both (nearly equally) important aspects of "online pokemon" and everything that entails? If you say yes and agree that both are very significant, would you not agree that both aspects should be included in a definition of broken? What I'm leaning towards is if something X is not broken in application but alters the overall metagame's team matchup factor component from "influencing outcome" to "determining outcome," should we not consider suspecting it?

I guess traditionally, we have always ignored the team matchup factor because in very general terms, it was always just on the influence level. Gen 1 - 4, even if you had a team disadvantage, if you had built a solid team, you could still pull out a decent probability win. Can we say that now? I'm not taking a stance here, just honestly asking. If the answer is yes, what is the point where team matchup factor goes from mere influence to determining?

I'd like to comment on these specifically. You are observing that dealing with sun "requires weird things" because of a very rain-centric meta since early BW. Its because of that that using Jellicent is "normal" ("Hey, it also checks Scizor and spin blocks..") but using a scarfed infernape is "weird" or "specific" ("hey, its useless against rain, what a hi-risk, specialized and weird set").

I agree with this 100%. I am defining "normal" and "weird" based on what we have observed in practice, not a generalized concept of each.

So here we have an inherent bias to observing what constitutes normal teams and what constitutes weird teams because of rain.

I'm not sure I can agree with the usage of the word bias here. Or maybe inherent bias. It's more an "empirical" (quotes necessary lol) observation based on practice than an assumption based on bias.

I'll also just casually make the observation that pokemon that can counter sun tend to perform poorly in or against rain. (I should also note that these pokemon do not perform well against sand staples, but that is much less of an issue) Some examples:

1. Houndoom can pursuit trap Darmanitan/Victini and could typically run a moderate mixed set if it could use its fully powered STAB's
2. Chandelure can counter Venusaur and Sawsbuck that fail to carry ground type coverage but can only do so much when it has an 80 power STAB against rain teams
3. Running your own fire types can actually give sun teams a massive headache, Infernape is difficult for sun staples to switch into!
4. Victini and Darm can do some serious work against sun teams but are quickly turned useless against rains army

Please note what I mention above does incorporate "theorymonning" (albeit I've used pokemon like mixed Houndoom before), but it is just to be used as a reference

So, we can argue that Infernape will be satisfactory against most sand teams, stall teams and weather-less teams, its a great hole puncher after all! The reality is however, that a pokemon that can completely be nullified by the sheer # of options rain teams have, can and will not do well in the current metagame. Perhaps, relating back to your first point, if we were to consider a rain-less and hence sun-centric metagame, we could theorise that sun would simply become the new rain, the difference between sun and rain however is very clear, it is a difference of homogeneity versus versatility. This in turn would mean that options to deal with sun are less to do with determining how many pokemon you will need that could switch into Thunder, Spikes, Hurricane, Leech Seed, Toxic, Scald, Focus Punch, Hydro Pump, Body Slam etc and more to do with how you can play around archetypes that are much more simple.



edit: You'd be surprised by how many "outside the box" strategies work against sun that will not work against rain and perform nicely against other teams. For example my tailwind + banded outrage strategy makes short work of sun teams (they carry few steels) and does very well against most non-rain teams, but can lose in clutch situations to rain teams due to the popularity of protect/dual-steels/fire weakened etc.

edit 2: I can't double post so I'll post this in an edit. I think the real reason banning rain would be a problem is not because of what we would traditionally consider a sun team but rather because of dragons being able to run rampant with no restrictions on their fire coverage. With the potential to even get a 1.5x boost against non sand/hail teams, these dragons could potentially abuse the sun far more than conventional threats like Venusaur and Darmanitan, Jirachi's standard set would probably become scarf, Ferro would need outrage bait support, etc. I'd hypothesise that we see pokemon like Cresellia and Slowbro gradually rise to eventually make the OU cut in a rain-less meta and heatran would probably be the #1 pokemon again.

I'll finish with proposing a question to you, for the sake of consideration: How many pokemon can make use of water as a coverage type? How does this compare to the usefulness of fire as a coverage type?

The issue you mentioned is exactly the issue in my second point; because of the state of the metagame, countering sun explicitly leaves big holes to other major types more than countering those major types leaves a hole sun. I should clarify that by state of the metagame I mean because Sand / Rain / Stall counter or check strategies are just inherently more mixable than Sun counter or check strategies, even if Sun is individually easier to prepare for, Sun is actually the harder one to prepare for generally speaking. My Latios is good against all of Rain, Sand, weatherless, Stall...but is often is deadweight against Sun (either sacrifice fodder or Volcarona set up bait after a specs Draco Meteor). That's only one example, but I feel like those examples are much more common than the opposite.


Before I respond to the rest I'll just leave these out there, as I'll probably start repeating myself.

 

[UltiMario]

Ok, so then I'd like to propose George Elliot's example to you, since you seem ok with using theorymon about the future metagame to decide policy. What about "theorymon" about assumed future policy? If Keldeo is broken now, but, hint hint wink wink we believe we are banning Drizzle soon, should I bother suspecting Keldeo now?

People have been scolded for this before. During the Keldeo and Torn suspect tests, people were repeatedly told NOT to vote to keep them OU just so they could try and get a Drizzle suspect test to ban that instead. On top of that, our future policy for this generation has had stuff like a Darkrai suspect test lined up, and then completely dismantled because people were pushing for bans rather than unbans at the time. Where did that suspect test go? Completely gone. At least with theorymon, you can be certain that Salamence won't suddenly change his mind on what he is and get base 150 SpA, for a kind of comparison to "theorymonning" policy.

 

[yee]

I've been shown a certain something which has required me to step back and ask the council very broad questions, because clearly I have been chasing red herrings.

What is our current definition of broken?

Are we just banning right now because some certain things are more powerful than others (Torn-T / Genesect etc.)? I was under the impression that it was a factor only because it was part of a broader effect of directly making any possible BW2 OU meta unbalanced, but was then told things like Doug's Characteristics of an Ideal Metagame have "never been used". It's unquestionable that suspect testing weather is the next step we would take if we did take one based on this poll only because it's the biggest question mark we have to deal with. Neither me or the council knows exactly what would happen if we did put it up for suspect but I'm sure we both agree it would be more likely to result in a ban than anything else. I like to think a certain few members are just kicking the can down the road until XY (in fact I have seen a clear log at least showing someone would like to), but is disagreement on what we can define as "possibly broken" what's keeping it off the block?

If so, why aren't there more specific details of being "broken"? What is the definition we are considering adding to? There is a bigger disconnect between me and council than I had even thought possible, I originally see a log saying ya'll agree to "ban until a balanced metagame is achieved" but I didn't see there was so much ambiguity in what "balanced" was: I thought it just went without saying that things like better player winning often / diversity / luck / creativity etc. could all be seen as necessary parts of a balanced metagame as Doug laid out, but I seem to not even have a foggy idea of what we're working with. If someone argues that a pokemon is hurting one of those elements, why is it not worth a damn thing?

So please, any council member, release more specific details of what you look for because if I'm having personal talks with Aldaron about weather and still having trouble getting an idea of what we're even arguing over, I can't imagine the community knows much either. For more than a little while I've been seeing "Why don't we stop this theorymon and just test" pop up again and again because of this, and I know for sure at least a couple of council members are well intentioned people, but accidentally or not have left a lot of people in the dark.

 

[Memphis Grizzly]

What*is*our current definition of broken?*

This is exactly what I wanted to know in my post above. Who has an exact format of this ideal meta game? Are these players just seeking bans till they have a concrete feeling of balance, without knowing what they are searching for till they reach it. If so then banning a weather would be just for the sake of having something to ban till the next "over centralized" play style appears.

 

[Curtains]

I think as far as pokemon go this generation Genesect is probably the best example of something that is broken. It was fast, versatile, can raise its stats by just coming in and had 1 counter in the entire tier. You felt its brokenness. No matter how you made a team you looked at it and knew that you had a problem with Genesect. genesect was absolutely fucked up as far as balance. I think tornadus-t and deoxys-d were bans just to keep the suspect test moving. Players really had to come up with wild reasons why they were broken. For things like weather and SR you are more or less shaping the metagame. These types of things have to be looked at with the integrity of the game in mind. Questions like "will the resulting metagame be better or worse?" has to come to mind. That is why the people that blindly want to ban SR just because: "i think it is broken. So all broken things must be banned now with no vision of the resulting metagame." have to look deeper.