hey stop going outside of my imaginary world. if kabutops is impossible to stop after the rain dies down then it is broken both inside and outside of rain; the case i'm arguing is if it is broken in rain but merely good outside of rain. then there's not much else to discuss cause that's one of the main assumptions of my argument. if that *isn't* what you meant then you have yet to give a reason why rain is the party at fault.
That is not necessarily true, both of them are simply factors. The fact that Kabutops plows through its counters in the rain and can simply finish off a weakened team without the Rain is my point. No other Rain sweeper can do this.
whistle said:
i can't argue with something until i am sure it's not logically inconsistent:
"If Kabutops and only Kabutops is broken under rain, then lets ban what is broken." seems to imply that the broken party is the pokemon that does the sweeping
"This is why we banned shit like Honchkrow and even Wobbuffet not the Pokemon that it increased the effectiveness of (which it did essentially equally for many Pokemon I might add)." seems to imply that the broken party is the entity that increases the effectiveness of another pokemon
Ok so I forgot to put a sentance in between those two sentences: "This is why Spikes is the culprit and not Moltres/Swellow/etc; Spikes is the one that is consistantly being broken." Then it all of the sudden makes a lot more sense.
whistle said:
note that just because something does the sweeping doesn't mean it's what we should ban... which seems to be the only warrant in your "kabutops is broken" claim. yes, for the purposes of this debate, my position is that the entity "kabutops in rain" -- but the question to be answered is not to determine what is doing the sweeping (since that is obvious) but to determine what is at fault (which i say is rain dance).
That is not what I said. I said "Kabutops is what's broken, so let's ban it instead of Rain".
whistle said:
because...? the point is to consider two mini thought experiments with alternating the presence of kabutops and the presence of rain dance as controlled and independent variables. in the first one, we first look at kabutops without rain then look at it with rain. hey, look, adding rain made it broken. in the second one, we first look at rain dance without kabutops then look at rain dance with kabutops. but wait -- this is an invalid experiment, because rain dance is defined by it sweepers; it's impossible to quantify how "broken" a rain team is without reverting to first quantifying how "broken" its sweepers are, which becomes circular because that's what we're trying to quantify in the first place. this means the only logically consistent conclusion is that rain breaks kabutops and not the other way around.
Again, "why"? Why is Rain defined by its sweepers? Rain is clearly defined by the use of Rain with Swift Swimmers. There is nothing in the "definition of rain" that suggests we cannot say "Rain isn't broken without Kabutops".
Additionally, I don't think this matters. I am not trying to quantify how broken a Rain team is. I am suggesting we just ban what's broken.
whistle said:
quote from whistle: "assume it was banned under the support clause for walrein / froslass / etc"
regardless of the "main" reason it was banned at least part of the reason was that it supports other pokemon similarly to how froslass and arguably rain dance supports other pokemon. theorybans are pretty obsolete now lol and anyways there was talk about banning snover just because of its ability back when hail rampaged the ladder. either way it doesn't matter why abomasnow was banned i was just giving the argument an example pokemon.
I don't think it's fair to use an example of "why we banned a Pokemon" as an argument when you're not using the correct reasons (even if you want me to assume things). That's just a lesser degree of me saying "look we banned Yanmega (assumed we banned it for its versatility)" if I were to be arguing about banning a versatile Pokemon.
whistle said:
my argument is that it's highly possible that this part of your argument is just a perception fallacy. it seems like you are jumping to the conclusion of "kabutops is broken" just because it sticks out as the pokemon that is most broken under rain while there are a few pokemon that are broken with spikes support. this means that your statement of "there is no way to deduce that for Rain" isn't necessarily true; it just means that our sample group isn't large enough.
spikes breaks 5/50 pokemon
rain breaks 1/6 pokemon
(note to those watching at home: actual numbers may vary)
my point is that if you "expand" the fraction 1/6 then you get something like 5/30 or 8/50 which are similar to spikes' ratio (if you account for uncertainty derived from the fact that i made those numbers up and the fact that you can't split a pokemon into half).
By what logic are you assuming that more Pokemon would be broken if we had a larger "sample size". Are you trying to say that "1/6 is about the same % as 5/50"? Because I have said this before: but that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that
one Pokemon is broken under Rain versus
many that are broken by Spikes. The only thing that matters is that Kabutops is in fact that the only thing that is broken is Kabutops. It has nothing to do with "the other Rain Dance sweepers" or "if there were more". There aren't more. From a logical standpoint, banning Kabutops is FAR more convenient then nerfing all of Rain. This would be like banning Stealth Rock instead of Cresselia if stall is broken.
From a competitive standpoint, we should just ban what fulfills the characteristics. Kabutops fulfills the characteristic with "minor support" from Rain. It only needs 2 turns to be broken.
whistle said:
first note that just because competitive rain teams use kabutops doesn't mean it's broken -- i brought up that argument solely (which means "only" in case YOU'RE BAD AT ENGLISH :P) as a reason why comparing rain teams with and without kabutops isn't easy to theorymon. basically every rain team uses ludicolo too and you don't think that's broken.
ffffff
My point was that you even admitted that Kabutops is a key aspect to Rain teams. Banning ludicolo would nerf Rain dance as well, and by your logic outlined in your post, you would be all for doing that as long as it weakened Rain dance.
whistle said:
second, my goal isn't to nerf rain dance -- it's to ban what's at fault for unbalancing the tier, which isn't always the pokemon that is sweeping. at any rate i think that idea is the same one behind the support characteristic (all the characteristics, really, but it's most easily seen in the support characteristic).
Uhh...
whistle said:
"take steps to reduce rain's effectiveness"
Yea you did lol.
Banedon said:
@Heysup tell me where this comparison fails.
Send Kabutops in on Chansey <-> Send Aggron in on Chansey
SPAM STONE EDGE <-> SPAM CHOICE BANDED HEAD SMASH
Eventually their butops counter dies due to no recovery <-> Eventually their Aggron counter dies due to no recovery (or in Tangrowth's case, gets 2HKO'ed)
Therefore Kabutops satisfies the OC <-> Therefore Aggron satisfies the OC
I'm assuming the (unnamed) Aggron counter doesn't have reliable recovery since Head Smash and Stone Edge are both physical, rock attacks and so should have the same counter. I'm also assuming that being able to beat stall means a Pokemon satisfies the OC - after all, that's what happened to Gallade.
It fails when Tangrowth can still use Synthesis and gain 50% of its health back. It also fails when Milotic outspeeds you. It also fails when you cannot OHKO Hitmontop in the Rain like Kabutops can (set dependent I'll admit). It also fails when you cannot beat Donphan like Kabutops can.
That's just off the top of my head. But anyway, my point isn't even that it is broken versus stall, my point is that it is still "great" versus stall, contrary to what FlareBlitz suggested.
