If this bothers you, play Ubers, or find/make a server with Battle Frontier rules.When people stop being lazy and find ways to deal with "suspects" (not just choosing the six more used Pokémon with the six more used movesets and call that a team), then maybe we could play "Pokémon" as it was planned by the producers to be played. It's been three years already with this "ban, unban" shit, lol. When you finally fix a good team to start laddering, the main player from your team gets banned or it's main predator gets unbanned. Seriously, Smogon could use some of Sirlin's advice on competitive games.
What is really funny is that we did, it was called Stage 3...It's funny how Smogon keeps banning one Pokemon after another, and yet never had a metagame with ALL the "suspects" allowed to see how it goes. Lati@s where banned before people could even choose their character's name, for crying out loud.
When people stop being lazy and find ways to deal with "suspects" (not just choosing the six more used Pokémon with the six more used movesets and call that a team), then maybe we could play "Pokémon" as it was planned by the producers to be played. It's been three years already with this "ban, unban" shit, lol. When you finally fix a good team to start laddering, the main player from your team gets banned or it's main predator gets unbanned. Seriously, Smogon could use some of Sirlin's advice on competitive games.
It should be unnecessary. The idea is that standard is a well-balanced metagame with few bans. If you can make a well balanced metagame with the low Ubers, that should be standard. If low Ubers isn't well balanced, why play it at all when you can just play Ubers?Am I the only one crazy enough to suggest a Tier between Uber and OU?
Yes, that is true that it might perhaps create a more desirable metagame by banning sets in that manner, but how is such any better than banning things altogether? Both have the potential to create a more diverse meta-game.The time issue is really the most valid argument against this and it needs to be addressed.
The "arbitrary" argument is completely irrelevant. Our entire tiering system is arbitrary. Who's to say OU shouldn't be what Ubers currently is? The answer to this is that we tend to like a bit more diversity than Ubers can provide, but either way, it's all a matter of what people enjoy the most. Who's to say nerfing a few ubers won't provide a more enjoyable metagame? Sure, adding SD-less Garchomp alone would perhaps not diversify the metagame, but this is probably the most extreme example as there is something that it outclasses entirely. This isn't necessarily true for the others. For instance, keeping Mence but removing DD or Outrage would give Dragonite more reason to be used, while Mence would likely remain a viable pokémon. Taking away Latias' Draco Meteor would probably make its most viable set CM, and this adds something to the metagame that we simply don't have at the moment. There's nothing that is currently used that this set entirely outclasses, so it would likely diversify the metagame.
I can see this creating a more enjoyable metagame, and as far as I'm concerned, if we do it right, it can't possibly make it worse. The only issue is time, but since 5th gen will likely take quite some time to implement, we have quite a bit of that particular resource.
My point exactly. I completely agree. By the time this shit gets sorted out it will be 5th Gen, maybe even 6th or 7th Gen.Ideologically this is something that I would support. Practically, however, I don't think it would work. The suspect testing process already takes far too long. It will be fifth gen before we even complete testing at our current rate. Adding this would make testing take much longer.
Well, here's the thing. Banning a Pokemon takes a long-ass time. Latias' time in the OU metagame took almost 1.5 years.kd24 said:Ok, let's be realistic about this please; If you do make some new phenomenal set that no one else even realizes (which won't happen), once you use it in a tourney to great effect, then your opponents will know what is up. They will try it out, tell people about it, and it will catch on. All it takes is one battle for something to catch on and popularize.
To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure anyone would deliberately hide sets from everyone and then only use them in tournaments, but even if this was the case, why wouldn't this already be happening. If I have an excellent set and I don't want to ladder with it, then I won't be telling people if I plan to use it in a tournament.
You are basically making random assumptions about what "could" (and I use that term loosely) happen but your same arguments could apply to right now and honestly don't make much sense.
Okay, the over exaggeration on my part was unnecessary, but I'm not a moron. I read the OP and I know about the new format. The council supposedly gets things done faster. It still think it will take longer than a month to thoroughly test these 5 suspects and see which items/ moves should be banned on them. Even though a re-vote/[whatever the proper term is] is not likely under the new format, it is still possible. No one ever imagined that the Latias vote would be taken to stage 3-5. Latias was OU for a year while the test was still going on. Is it not reasonable for me to assume that these tests may take longer than what you estimate? The Salamence test is going on now, and I'm assuming this will be taken care of once that is finished. That is already one month.To the moron above this post(if somebody post before me im talking to warrior prince), if you bothered to read the OP or kept up with Smogon, the suspect problem (time) has already been address infact with this new format it shouldn't take more than a 1month to make a decision on any issues.
Would you take issue with utilizing Pokemon specific bans alongside the suspect process for Generation Five?Lati0s said:The suspect testing process already takes far too long. It will be fifth gen before we even complete testing at our current rate. Adding this would make testing take much longer.
No. I hope no one is understanding this as a call to utterly balance the metagame. As far as I can interpret what Aldaron has suggested, Pokemon specific bans will only be used to balance Pokemon that we have moved from suspect to uber status. No one is going to ban Extremespeed on Lucario unless Lucario is first deemed uber. (I'm not going to touch the Stealth Rock example.) This is not a crusade to balance the top of OU. It is a suggestion that there are options other than the outright ban of a Pokemon.Glen ^^ said:Then people will start banning Stealth Rock on Aerodactyl, Extreme Speed on Lucario, and so on.
No game mechanics would be altered. We are simply banning things. That does not alter the game mechanics any more than our existing tier divisions. Do you consider the ban of Kyogre an alteration to the game mechanics?SJCrew said:We already have a standard set for ourselves here at Smogon, which is to remain faithful to the game mechanics.
This analogy would only work if Pokemon players were forced to run the exact same teams. "Banning things" is ridiculous in Chess because diversity is not an issue. This is not the case for Pokemon.Akarias said:What you're trying to do is like if you're playing chess and then all of a sudden you make the rule that queens should be taken out and replaced by rooks, just because you think queens are imbalanced.
This holds true for banning X Pokemon as well as X move. For example, banning Latias has let Infernape off his chain, doing bad things for stall. At the same time, Latias' removal means she's no longer there to hassle specially based offensive teams. Metagame changes as a result of bans have always been taken in stride. Your issue is not specific to the type of bans we are suggesting, it applies to any kind of ban with any kind of magnitude.Relictivity said:Yes, but by banning X set or X move or whatever, we are favoring a certain style of play.
If I have it right, you're saying the following: Because of large amount of time it takes to ban a Pokemon, the a person who exposes a new, broken set currently has lots of time to play with it, even after letting the community know. Because they know their tactics are safe to use for a reasonable amount of time, they don't mind helping the community by exposing the set. A new, faster way to balance things and make bans would ruin this. Am I correct to assume that this is your position?mtr said:[...] Banning a Pokemon takes a long-ass time. [...] Banning a set/move/item would probably be a quicker process. [...] Thus, players would be far more reticent to show off their sets, since that would result in a potentially speedy ban than a very slow one.
I'm saying that the tiering process examines and bans the Pokemon itself, not its capabilities, and for good reason. We can't decide that a Pokemon can't use certain moves that unbalance it from standard play because Manaphy without the ability to use Tail Glow is not Manaphy and it'd be quite a bitchslap to our current policy as it is.Do you consider the ban of Kyogre an alteration to the game mechanics?