UU's Impact on RU - Setting a Precedent

[Windsong]

Recently, the idea of unbanning and retesting Hail in RU was raised, as it was never officially banned from the RU tier, but rather forced up a tier due to the banning of Snow Warning from the UU tier. Although unbanning and retesting Hail was decided against, at least for now, the whole debate raised a new and very important issue. The "conclusion", so to speak, on the Hail discussion is found below:

[12:03pm] windsong: i'm strongly against retesting hail
[12:03pm] ShakeItUp: honko's gonna do no retest
[12:03pm] ShakeItUp: :p
[12:03pm] windsong: and adamantly no on retesting son
[12:03pm] windsong: * sun
[12:03pm] zdrup15: I'd hate to retest sun but you understand my point
[12:03pm] Texas: p. sure shake's the only one in favour of sun
[12:03pm] zdrup15: if the point to test hail is we didn't ban it, then sun should be tested too
[12:03pm] windsong: well yeah we can't legitimize retesting one withoutout the other
[12:03pm] windsong: yeah
[12:03pm] windsong: that's the main problem
[12:03pm] windsong: either both or none
[12:03pm] ShakeItUp: im not in favor of it
[12:03pm] ShakeItUp: im just saying we need to.
[12:03pm] ShakeItUp: lol
[12:03pm] zdrup15: thanks, nice to see someone understands my logic!
[12:04pm] windsong: honestly the only advantage i see of retesting both
[12:04pm] Texas: p sure everyone understands the logic too
[12:04pm] windsong: is to set up a precedent
[12:04pm] windsong: so what UU does doesn't fuck up RU
[12:04pm] zdrup15: you were against it
[12:04pm] zdrup15: so I'd say you didn't
[12:04pm] Molk: hail was insane
[12:04pm] ShakeItUp: fuck uu
[12:04pm] ShakeItUp: :<
[12:04pm] zdrup15: windsong there was never that precedent
[12:04pm] Texas: I used that same logic all the time zdrup, I understood it
[12:04pm] zdrup15: they only banned bad things for ru
[12:04pm] windsong: yeah but my point is that
[12:05pm] Texas: subjective
[12:05pm] windsong: the only reason to retest this is to set that up
[12:05pm] Limaway is now known as Limi.
[12:05pm] zdrup15: meh, I'm not a fan of creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist
[12:05pm] Texas: Personally I want that precedent, i don't like how UU can theoretically remove an aspect of our metagame beyond tiering
[12:05pm] windsong: i didn't say i supported it, just that it's the only legitimate reason i see for doing it
[12:05pm] Texas: especially if programming isnt an issue
[12:05pm] zdrup15: I undertsand windsong
[12:06pm] windsong: alright
[12:06pm] ShakeItUp: lol
[12:06pm] blarajan joined the chat room.
[12:06pm] windsong: texas, are there any issues in UU right now
[12:06pm] zdrup15: nope
[12:06pm] windsong: that threaten to damage the ru meta
[12:07pm] zdrup15: they are considering banning roserade according to koko
[12:07pm] windsong: because that weird thing with banning spikes got shot down
[12:07pm] Texas: at the persent moment no
[12:07pm] Texas: *present
[12:07pm] zdrup15: which I'm pretty sure isn't a danger to ru
[12:07pm] Texas: although spikes would have ~2-3 months ago
[12:07pm] windsong: so honestly i'd agree with zdrup on not creating a solution for a nonexistent problem
[12:07pm] zdrup15: can someone post this log in the thread?
[12:08pm] zdrup15: I was writing a post but I'm too lazy

To sum it up, we raised one issue, which is the main argument for unbanning and retesting Hail (and Drought/Sun!): Due to the existence of complex bans, we should have some precedent set so that bans that take place in the UU metagame will not result in irreparable damage to the RU metagame. The best way to establish such a thing would be to allow for anything banned in the UU metagame that significantly impacts RU to be tested for legality in the RU metagame.

Thoughts?

 

[lars]

It's probably safest to say that each tier should be responsible for their (and only their) respective tier (in terms of voting for complex bans).

I think at this point it is very unlikely that a complex ban in an upper tier is actually detrimental to a lower tier's metagame, but considering it is always a possibility (who knows what kind of shit BW2 is going to throw at us) I would rather RU (and any other applicable affected tiers) vote whether or not to follow a complex ban that has been implemented by a higher tier.

Maybe its some work now (and it might never even come up), but it's better than being ok with it now and then eating our words later.

For example, UU bans the use of Sunny Day. RU (and NU I suppose) would open it up to community discussion (the RU community will speak loud and clear if it is actually a big deal) and then shortly followed by a RU council vote on whether or not to follow the complex ban that has been set by UU. If Sunny Day was already under close watch for being overpowered in RU, then it will probably follow the UU ban, but if the reason it was banned is due to Darmanitan/Chandelure being able to abuse it, and Sunny Day is easily manageable in RU, then why should we have to follow it?

It is certainly a very case by case situation. The move Sunny Day is probably a poor representation, but I think it gets the point across.

(heh, makes me wonder about Smash passing in NU)

 

[Tyranitarphantom]

For example, UU bans the use of Sunny Day. RU (and NU I suppose) would open it up to community discussion (the RU community will speak loud and clear if it is actually a big deal) and then shortly followed by a RU council vote on whether or not to follow the complex ban that has been set by UU. If Sunny Day was already under close watch for being overpowered in RU, then it will probably follow the UU ban, but if the reason it was banned is due to Darmanitan/Chandelure being able to abuse it, and Sunny Day is easily manageable in RU, then why should we have to follow it?

It is certainly a very case by case situation. The move Sunny Day is probably a poor representation, but I think it gets the point across.

An effort should always be made to keep bans minimal. From what I understand, Hail was banned from UU for being a multi-faceted threat, with problems ranging from Blizzspam, TR+Endeavor, and Snow Cloak hax. Since there were so many viable abusers, Hail was simply banned instead. In your hypothetical situation, if Darmanitan and Chandelure were the only things broken under Sun, hopefully they would get the boot, so as to avoid banning an entire playstyle (and thus damning Pokemon only viable in Sun to lower tiers). If it were not only those two, but things like Sawsbuck and Shiftry were also broken, then banning Sun would seem more reasonable. As you said, it's certainly a case by case thing. For the Spikes issue in UU, if it was only Roserade/Froslass that made Spikes broken (I highly doubt something like Garbodor would break Spikes), why not just ban the two of them?

I'm personally opposed to complex bans in general. I would think having rules like "Hail is banned in UU and NU, but is legal in RU" (or something like that) just makes things too complicated, and would likely alienate newer players. I'd imagine many veteran players would be opposed to it too. Our policy has always been that higher tiers' banlists apply to every tier below them. The idea of banning Spikes from lower tiers is indeed a bizarre one, but even so, we've always gone by the same policy, so why change it now? Is upsetting years of policy worth preserving a metagame?

 

[lars]

Is upsetting years of policy worth preserving a metagame?

I would say yes.



But to each their own.

"Upsetting" is not necessarily the right word though. The evolution of policy, or the adaptation, or perhaps a compromise between policy and metagame.

With more tiers and an increasingly complex metagame across those tiers (some very different than others), it seems reasonable that complex bans might become commonplace.

I would personally rather be on the cutting edge (and the change of protocol) than be overly traditional or even antiquated (I am certainly not saying that current policy is antiquated, but a precedence of no change can lead to that).

The "slippery slope" issue can be considered on both sides of the argument so, as always, a happy medium and compromise should be found.

I am pretty anti-ban in general, complex or not, so I think it is understandable that I would be very against a ban that was implemented simply as "drop down" from some other tier.

#200 is next, I gotta start planning on what to do!

 

[Honko]

In the unlikely event that UU ever makes a decision that really fucks up our tier, like a Spikes ban, I absolutely think we should be able to decide for ourselves whether to follow it or ignore it. I don't really see the point in debating this now though, because the decision would be based entirely on what it is that got banned, and speculating on improbable future bans from another tier isn't really productive.

 

[destinyunknown]

A problem I see with the argument is that (sometimes) banned things on BL haven't ever been in RU. I mean, for example, unbanning sun would make no sense because if it weren't banned, Vulpix would be UU, so bringing Drought to RU would be upsetting the way the tiers have been made since DPP.

 

[zdrup15]

[12:05pm] zdrup15: meh, I'm not a fan of creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist
[12:05pm] Texas: Personally I want that precedent, i don't like how UU can theoretically remove an aspect of our metagame beyond tiering
[12:05pm] windsong: i didn't say i supported it, just that it's the only legitimate reason i see for doing it
[12:05pm] Texas: especially if programming isnt an issue
[12:05pm] zdrup15: I undertsand windsong
[12:06pm] windsong: alright
[12:06pm] ShakeItUp: lol
[12:06pm] blarajan joined the chat room.
[12:06pm] windsong: texas, are there any issues in UU right now
[12:06pm] zdrup15: nope
[12:06pm] windsong: that threaten to damage the ru meta
[12:07pm] zdrup15: they are considering banning roserade according to koko
[12:07pm] windsong: because that weird thing with banning spikes got shot down
[12:07pm] Texas: at the persent moment no
[12:07pm] Texas: *present
[12:07pm] zdrup15: which I'm pretty sure isn't a danger to ru
[12:07pm] Texas: although spikes would have ~2-3 months ago
[12:07pm] windsong: so honestly i'd agree with zdrup on not creating a solution for a nonexistent problem

Ok, I'm very confused again. Yesterday you agreed with me (like is stated in the OP) that we shouldn't create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The next thing you do is exactly the opposite...

I'll maintain my position that we don't need to discuss things before there's any sign they'll happen. Also, I always knew big Honko would agree xD

 

[kokoloko]

@zdrup - We won't ever ban the move Spikes, but we could possibly be banning Sand Veil soon (which would mean Sandslash as well--a pretty big deal in RU), so this thread is a good idea.

I've always thought that the whole cascading bans thing was an unnecessary restriction to tiering. Fuck precedent.