Pokemon, in it's purest form, is a very shallow game. If we did not ban things, this game would be little better than rolling dies to determine a winner. However, through banning things, we have shown that pokemon, underneath all of it's problems, can be a deep and strategic game.
Smogon aims to uncover this game by creating an environment with the least randomization involved. When we speak of luck in pokemon, we often use the word "hax." Hax, in simple terms, is when luck occurs in pokemon. More often than not, this affects the outcome of the match. If Smogon wanted to create the absolutely most competitive form of pokemon imaginable, as much of this luck would be removed from the game as possible.
Keep in mind, however, that we do not play Chess. We play Pokemon, and at it's core, luck is a part of the game. We must determine, then, what is acceptable and not acceptable in terms of luck.
I argue that acceptable luck consists of critical hits, side effects of moves (ice beam's 10% freeze, for example), and things like the possibility of full paralysis.
I argue that these things are acceptable levels of luck because they do not at any point remove any player's ability to play the game. While they may "steal wins" by allowing otherwise impossible situations to occur, this is an integral part of pokemon that the creators of the game included in order to make games more "wet and wild" or "exciting."
We must also determine whether moves that induce status as their main effect are fair, and I argue that these moves are fair. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a good player who would argue against this. Status is another integral part of the game, and contributes more to gameplay than the luck factor I mentioned above. Inflicting status is a legitimate strategy. Using wil-o-wisp to cripple a physical sweeper is a legitimate tactic. Using thunder wave to cripple a scarf user is a legitimate tactic. Using toxic on something that otherwise walls you is a legitimate tactic. Likewise, using moves with side effects with the purpose of trying to inflict status is a legitimate tactic. In generation one OU, for example, using ice beam against an opponent's Chansey in order to freeze it and disable it is not luck - it is strategy. Also, the removal of agency in this case must be "worked for" and is easy to play around. Getting a freeze after the first ice beam would be lucky, but it would fall into the acceptable range of luck.
Swag Play is not strategic in this sense. Swag Play is a tactic that fishes for free turns with no regard given to the target of Swagger or Thunder Wave. The user of this tactic does not care what he hits with Swagger or what he paralyzes with Thunder Wave - and hypothetically if there were no ground or electric pokemon on the opponent's team, would spam thunder wave with impunity in order to slow the opposing pokemon, and follow up with swagger to remove the opponent's chance to play the game. Next, a substitute will usually go up in order to minimize losses if the opponent is lucky enough to be allowed a move. All users of this strategy carry leftovers, so losing a substitute is of no real consequence. Finally, once behind the protection of para fusion, and a substitute in case the opponent is lucky enough to move, is the common foul play OHKO or 2HKO.
This is problematic for many reasons.
1) It allows defensive pokemon to be incredibly offensive, thus being a one man army. This is unfortunate as it removes the element of team building. Rather than adding teammates to cover any weaknesses, often times these pokemon are all copy-pasted with the same exact moves and EVs, thus somewhat getting around the species clause.
2) It removes a player's ability to play the game by turning the game not only into a game of luck, but a game of luck that is slighted heavily against anyone facing this tactic. It is more lucky to be allowed a turn against this strategy than not. How can that be fair? For instance, it would not be fair for a marathon runner to trip and break another runner's leg in order to put him out of the race. This is what this strategy does in a sense. It takes the opponent out of the game, and rather than beating the opponent at a game of pokemon, the person utilizing this tactic was allowed turns while the other player was not. That isn't competitive.
3) Allowing this strategy creates a huge inconsistency in what our rules allow and do not allow. Take Evasion, for instance. Any point used to argue for the allowance of Evasion can be applied as an argument to allow Swag Play. Logically, this makes the two strategies identical enough to warrant a ban on both of them, or neither of them.
4) Evasion is more fair than Swag Play, yet is banned. Reliable counters to Evasion exist in the forms of moves that do not check accuracy and phazing moves. These are both types of moves that are easily accessible and available to viable pokemon. The only true counter to Swag Play is Numel, a pokemon with barely over 300 BST.
I believe that the strategy must be removed in some way due to the reasons given above. I personally believe that a complex ban on Swagger + Foul Play on the same set will cause the least amount of disruption throughout the users of Showdown, while also solving the problems with this strategy. I am also not opposed to just banning Swagger in the name of simplicity.
Smogon aims to uncover this game by creating an environment with the least randomization involved. When we speak of luck in pokemon, we often use the word "hax." Hax, in simple terms, is when luck occurs in pokemon. More often than not, this affects the outcome of the match. If Smogon wanted to create the absolutely most competitive form of pokemon imaginable, as much of this luck would be removed from the game as possible.
Keep in mind, however, that we do not play Chess. We play Pokemon, and at it's core, luck is a part of the game. We must determine, then, what is acceptable and not acceptable in terms of luck.
I argue that acceptable luck consists of critical hits, side effects of moves (ice beam's 10% freeze, for example), and things like the possibility of full paralysis.
I argue that these things are acceptable levels of luck because they do not at any point remove any player's ability to play the game. While they may "steal wins" by allowing otherwise impossible situations to occur, this is an integral part of pokemon that the creators of the game included in order to make games more "wet and wild" or "exciting."
We must also determine whether moves that induce status as their main effect are fair, and I argue that these moves are fair. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a good player who would argue against this. Status is another integral part of the game, and contributes more to gameplay than the luck factor I mentioned above. Inflicting status is a legitimate strategy. Using wil-o-wisp to cripple a physical sweeper is a legitimate tactic. Using thunder wave to cripple a scarf user is a legitimate tactic. Using toxic on something that otherwise walls you is a legitimate tactic. Likewise, using moves with side effects with the purpose of trying to inflict status is a legitimate tactic. In generation one OU, for example, using ice beam against an opponent's Chansey in order to freeze it and disable it is not luck - it is strategy. Also, the removal of agency in this case must be "worked for" and is easy to play around. Getting a freeze after the first ice beam would be lucky, but it would fall into the acceptable range of luck.
Swag Play is not strategic in this sense. Swag Play is a tactic that fishes for free turns with no regard given to the target of Swagger or Thunder Wave. The user of this tactic does not care what he hits with Swagger or what he paralyzes with Thunder Wave - and hypothetically if there were no ground or electric pokemon on the opponent's team, would spam thunder wave with impunity in order to slow the opposing pokemon, and follow up with swagger to remove the opponent's chance to play the game. Next, a substitute will usually go up in order to minimize losses if the opponent is lucky enough to be allowed a move. All users of this strategy carry leftovers, so losing a substitute is of no real consequence. Finally, once behind the protection of para fusion, and a substitute in case the opponent is lucky enough to move, is the common foul play OHKO or 2HKO.
This is problematic for many reasons.
1) It allows defensive pokemon to be incredibly offensive, thus being a one man army. This is unfortunate as it removes the element of team building. Rather than adding teammates to cover any weaknesses, often times these pokemon are all copy-pasted with the same exact moves and EVs, thus somewhat getting around the species clause.
2) It removes a player's ability to play the game by turning the game not only into a game of luck, but a game of luck that is slighted heavily against anyone facing this tactic. It is more lucky to be allowed a turn against this strategy than not. How can that be fair? For instance, it would not be fair for a marathon runner to trip and break another runner's leg in order to put him out of the race. This is what this strategy does in a sense. It takes the opponent out of the game, and rather than beating the opponent at a game of pokemon, the person utilizing this tactic was allowed turns while the other player was not. That isn't competitive.
3) Allowing this strategy creates a huge inconsistency in what our rules allow and do not allow. Take Evasion, for instance. Any point used to argue for the allowance of Evasion can be applied as an argument to allow Swag Play. Logically, this makes the two strategies identical enough to warrant a ban on both of them, or neither of them.
4) Evasion is more fair than Swag Play, yet is banned. Reliable counters to Evasion exist in the forms of moves that do not check accuracy and phazing moves. These are both types of moves that are easily accessible and available to viable pokemon. The only true counter to Swag Play is Numel, a pokemon with barely over 300 BST.
I believe that the strategy must be removed in some way due to the reasons given above. I personally believe that a complex ban on Swagger + Foul Play on the same set will cause the least amount of disruption throughout the users of Showdown, while also solving the problems with this strategy. I am also not opposed to just banning Swagger in the name of simplicity.
Last edited:
