Uncompetitive Stuff Discussion (aka Moody, OHKO moves, Mega Rayquaza...) + Is evasion broken in Ubers?

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

Smogon banned Swagger in June and conducted suspect tests regarding Mega Gengar and Shadow Tag. In fact, the latter gained enough votes to be given the axe, but the decision was later reversed. Several days after that, Mega Rayquaza joined the fun and destroyed the Ubers meta, and Smogon was forced to create a new metagame called Anything Goes, where this Pokemon is allowed, alongside Swagger, OHKO moves, Moody and multiple Dark Voids/Spores.

EvasionPass became a thing in ubers as OU conducted its own suspect test regarding BP. It contained stuff such as Drifblim and Smeragle, which could rely on luck and set up multiple Minimize boosts, before passing to Scolipede and finally to Espeon.

What do you think?

 

[Nah]

Tbh I don't see why Evasion Clause isn't a thing in Ubers. It's not like there's anything different about Ubers that makes Evasion not stupid; it's still annoying. Fortunately you also rarely see it in Ubers.

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

Forget Ubers. Evasion is broken full stop. ONE Minimise boost makes moves with less than 100 accuracy miss around 75% of the time.

I don't think Swagger should ever have been banned - it's just another confusion move.

 

[Candy]

Swagger is dangerous thanks to the SwagPlay. Plus, confusion's damage relies on the attack stat, so it makes sense if it's banned.

But yeah, evasion is broken, in any form of metagame be it Smogon or VGC. Why is there no Evasion Clause is out of my mind right now. Then again, I'm not a big Smogon player, but I have to agree on the question that is the lack of the Evasion Clause...

 

[srinator]

Forget Ubers. Evasion is broken full stop. ONE Minimise boost makes moves with less than 100 accuracy miss around 75% of the time.

I don't think Swagger should ever have been banned - it's just another confusion move.

do we really need to go through this again?
It's not just another confusion move, its a move that increases your attack 2x so even specially attacking pokemons with low attack receive high damage due to confusion hax. The distribution of this move to most relevant prankster pokemons that also had access to moves like foul play and thunder wave made it more disastrous. If you don't know what foul play is, its a move that damages you according to your attack stat.
The fact that liepard could tear through ou/ubers with this bull-shit no skill tactic is evidence for how broken it was.

Hope that was clear enough

 

[Anti]

speaking to the op i guess brokenness and uncompetitiveness are two different things. i don't play the disaster known as oras ubers so i can't speak to the brokenness of evasion but my guess is that it's not nearly as broken as, say, mega salamence, primal groudon, or even ekiller arceus/geoxern/mega gengar.

i'm all for being uncompetitive things, but the truth is that there always has to be a bit of brokenness. an easy example is comparing evasion to accuracy. no one wants to ban sand attack but double team is despised. "but you can much more easily switch out yourself than force your opponent to, especially when your attacks won't hit them." well, precisely, but that argument isn't saying that evasion is more uncompetitive than accuracy but that it is more broken. i think it's very disingenuous to say that anything is banned solely because it is uncompetitive. something has to be uncompetitive and good.

how good evasion is i don't know, but i have a nagging suspicion that it's not the biggest problem facing a tier that, even with just a cursory glance, really does not look appealing at all lol.

 

[Nah]

What's so bad about Ubers, Anti? Just curious.

 

[Bidoof FTW]

Don't treat me like an idiot.

I know you battle quite often. I don't know how often you ladder, or how long you've played. But if you know the basics of pokemon statuses (in this case, confusion) and also know that certain pokemon can take LARGE advantage of this move while not being touched because of paralyzation or confusion while dealing bs amounts of damage to pretty much any pokemon, then I really don't know why you asked the question in the first place and expected a response in which people won't be like "dude.....really?". If you want to be respected as a smart individual I feel you should think before you ask something like "why is swagger banned".


Inb4 "why can i only make one pokemon on a team sleep in ubers? my darkrai isnt good enuf."

Also to the OP. Whirlwind never misses even if your opponent has full evasion. Use this to your advantage if evasion is a problem. Another reason to use skarmory... yay.

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

I know you battle quite often. I don't know how often you ladder, or how long you've played. But if you know the basics of pokemon statuses (in this case, confusion) and also know that certain pokemon can take LARGE advantage of this move while not being touched because of paralyzation or confusion while dealing bs amounts of damage to pretty much any pokemon, then I really don't know why you asked the question in the first place and expected a response in which people won't be like "dude.....really?". If you want to be respected as a smart individual I feel you should think before you ask something like "why is swagger banned".

I'm of the mind that anyone should be allowed to use any move and not be looked down on for it. If people are gonna bitch about Swagger, just use a Lum/Persim Berry, a Pokemon with Own Tempo/Shed Skin, or just switch out. Or use a Pokemon that can outspeed and OHKO the Swagger user. And then there's the chance that Swagger will miss. There, plenty of options. It's not difficult.

And if that's your argument, explain why Paraflinch+Attract isn't banned, which has more or less the same effect.

 

[srinator]

I'm of the mind that anyone should be allowed to use any move and not be looked down on for it. So you think OHKO moves are competitive and people should be praised when they win due to this? or they should be praised when they keep winning with a team that has almost 0 skill value but because of hax? If people are gonna rattata about Swagger, just use a Lum/Persim Berry, a Pokemon with Own Tempo/Shed Skin, or just switch out.You do understand thats giving up an item slot just for the sake of one move to not be as much broken, o and the mon that use swag play are bulky enough to take a hit and do the same swagplay tactics over and over (hint:klefky) Or use a Pokemon that can outspeed and OHKO the Swagger user. Did you even read what i said above, most mons who abuse swagplay are pranskter users And then there's the chance that Swagger will miss. Swagger has a 10% chance of missing and 90% chance of winning i dont see your point. There, plenty of options. It's not difficult.

And if that's your argument, explain why Paraflinch+Attract isn't banned, which has more or less the same effect. REALLY? REALLY NOW?

comments in bold.

I dont see what your point is, the only reason the game has a governing body is so that they can make it enjoyable to people who play for fun (if u really want to play with bs tactics u always have ag or just play on ur small screens) and make it serious and complicated enough for more serious players. There are people in the community who have been playing for like 10+ years competitively, do you really think people would appreciate being beaten by a no-skill-bs tactics that can even be abused by newcomers? This was precisely the case with baton pass, but i think baton pass required skill in comparison to swag play which is just outright bonkers.

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

comments in bold.

I dont see what your point is, the only reason the game has a governing body is so that they can make it enjoyable to people who play for fun (if u really want to play with bs tactics u always have ag or just play on ur small screens) and make it serious and complicated enough for more serious players. There are people in the community who have been playing for like 10+ years competitively, do you really think people would appreciate being beaten by a no-skill-bs tactics that can even be abused by newcomers? This was precisely the case with baton pass, but i think baton pass required skill in comparison to swag play which is just outright bonkers.

If that's what the competitive community is really like, they need to grow a fucking backbone and stop bitching about everything. Personally, I've always looked down on people who take the game too seriously, mainly because they complain about the things they can't change, so it's pointless.
What are you gonna do about it if someone uses Sheer Cold? Exactly. You can't do anything. It's the way they wanna play, and you have to respect that. If you don't like the way others play the game, you shouldn't be online in the first place. People aren't gonna change just for your benefit.
Competitive Pokemon players are the worst for this. I'm just gonna be really patronizing and sum it up like this:
"You can't do that, that's not faaaaaiiiiiir!" (Just imagine a toddler's voice)
Grow up and deal with it.

I play games the way they were meant to be played - for fun, not as an excuse to complain about every conceivable in-game topic. If there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Dark Azelf]

If that's what the competitive community is really like, they need to grow a f*cking backbone and stop rattataing about everything. Personally, I've always looked down on people who take the game too seriously, mainly because they complain about the things they can't change, so it's pointless.

I look down on people who dont seem to grasp the concept of broken and no skill moves, pokemon etc. Fair isnt it? Because thats basically what you are doing. You can change things and its been a process in place since RBY, its called regulated tiering and bans. Its the same in sports or anywhere really. I mean in an MMA match i "could" use weapons and say "stop bitching bring your own weapons its not hard!" doesnt mean i can lol. Ad hominem isnt helping your "argument" either and neither is your personal incredulity js.

What are you gonna do about it if someone uses Sheer Cold? Exactly. You can't do anything. It's the way they wanna play, and you have to respect that.

Personally, i just win by default by DQ for their blatant noob breaking rule. Another fallacious argument here also.

If you don't like the way others play the game, you shouldn't be online in the first place. People aren't gonna change just for your benefit.

Hmmm....you do realize basically ALL of the competitive community agrees on the bans set in place (that goes for wifi and showdown)? So not only is your example wrong but its also fallacious.

Competitive Pokemon players are the worst for this. I'm just gonna be really patronizing and sum it up like this:
"You can't do that, that's not faaaaaiiiiiir!" (Just imagine a toddler's voice)
Grow up and deal with it.

So because you cant come up with a good, non fallacious, legit arguments you now decide to take and make another ad hominem argument so, another fallacy? Wonderful. P.s its still not helping ur argument.

I play games the way they were meant to be played - for fun, not as an excuse to complain about every conceivable in-game topic. If there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple

Thats nice, so nobody should play the game at all then? Nintendo also bans things in VGC the same way smogon does so going by your "logic" you basically alienate 99% of the pokemon community who has access to wifi and/or showdown, js.

Just please

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

[Mercurybro]

<snip>.

Bro, you're a hypocrite when it comes to competitive play discussion. Could you please have more enlightening and interesting gripes about the Smogon metagame such as non-mega Mewtwo not being in the OU tier even when it has a physical set and a toxic orb?

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

Bro, you're a hypocrite when it comes to competitive play discussion. Could you please have more enlightening and interesting gripes about the Smogon metagame such as non-mega Mewtwo not being in the OU tier even when it has a physical set and a toxic orb?

If I were a hypocrite, I'd be complaining about all that stuff too. But I'm not. I couldn't care less. Ergo, hypocrisy isn't really my issue here.

 

[Zeffy]

Let's keep the discussion civil guys. :)

 

[Anti]

What's so bad about Ubers, Anti? Just curious.

Everything is broken and they don't seem to balance themselves out that well. I must admit that I am basing this off of what others have said plus some of my own theorymon, but I have to say, it really looks like a pretty horrific tier. Any parroting accusation would have some merit, but P-Don is ridiculous, Mega Salamence is ridiculous, Mega Gengar is ridiculous, and after surveying the tier for even a short period of time I just concluded that it is indeed as bad as many people say it is.

FREE RAYQUAZA


...As for this dumb flame war, the content is most uninteresting, but as hypocrisy annoys me, I must make note of the following:

It's the way they wanna play, and you have to respect that.

If you don't like the way others play the game, you shouldn't be online in the first place.

Then why are you here, upset with how others enjoy Pokemon?

These lines just drip with irony when you spend much of your post portraying people who enjoy the game differently than you do as whiners, complainers, and toddlers.

You ask for respect but fail to give respect to others. People have different tastes and enjoy the game differently, and you perpetuate the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with taking Pokemon seriously (there isn't) or creating rulesets or tiers (there isn't). To quote someone you may know,

"If you don't like the way others play the game, you shouldn't be online in the first place."

Please be respectful.

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

...As for this dumb flame war, the content is most uninteresting, but as hypocrisy annoys me, I must make note of the following:




Then why are you here, upset with how others enjoy Pokemon?

These lines just drip with irony when you spend much of your post portraying people who enjoy the game differently than you do as whiners, complainers, and toddlers.

You ask for respect but fail to give respect to others. People have different tastes and enjoy the game differently, and you perpetuate the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with taking Pokemon seriously (there isn't) or creating rulesets or tiers (there isn't). To quote someone you may know,

"If you don't like the way others play the game, you shouldn't be online in the first place."

Please be respectful.

You've misinterpreted my argument. That's all I will say.

 

[Anti]

Well, I'll lay out how I read your post, and you can tell me what I'm misinterpreting.

If that's what the competitive community is really like, they need to grow a f*cking backbone and stop rattataing about everything. Personally, I've always looked down on people who take the game too seriously, mainly because they complain about the things they can't change, so it's pointless.

The language you use is loaded with value judgments. Grow a backbone. (You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are a wimpy cop-out.) Complain. (You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are the result of unsubstantiated self-indulgence and entitlement.) If you want your argument to come off as more respectful, then you should avoid words with such loaded negative connotations.

Anyway, people are allowed to enjoy the game as they wish. There an inherent silliness to Pokemon, but there is nothing wrong with enjoying a game competitively or "taking it seriously." I see no justification for looking down on someone for this, as people tend to take their hobbies seriously, however trivial they seem to outsiders. (I hear this often from my mother, who wonders how I can get emotionally attached to the NBA Finals.)

What are you gonna do about it if someone uses Sheer Cold? Exactly. You can't do anything.

Well, sure we can. Imagine if I said this about basketball: "What are you gonna do about it if someone tackles your point guard? Exactly, you can't do anything." You might find hard fouling in basketball to be more disagreeable than OHKO moves, and you might very well be right, but rulesets are created to govern a game and make it better. You can disagree with how well they actually do that, but your post appears to be attacking the legitimacy of any ruleset with the assumption that we should be favoring the game as it is given to us. Perhaps this is the source of my misinterpretation, but this assumption is heavily implied when you say things like:

If there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple.

Why is this the case? Why should it be the case? You state this as if it is a fact, but this is actually a very conservative argument masquerading as common sense; you are assigning greater value to a "pure" state of the game, which is assumed to be superior to one that is altered by humans, yet this is circularly justified. What is wrong with changing a game?

The NBA introduced the three-point line in 1979. If I went back and time and said "don't add the three-point line: if there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple," I would sound ridiculous.

This is why I interpret your post as communicating that there is something wrong with us changing the game, or something right about it in its purest state. Yet as a competitive game, Pokemon is very flawed. Even with the tiering system Smogon has adopted, it remains very flawed. The subject matter of this thread, the Uber tier, is a pretty good example of that. All these rulesets try to do is make it better, just like three-pointers have made basketball more exciting.

You also explicitly express a favoring for the "pure" state of the game here:

I play games the way they were meant to be played - for fun, not as an excuse to complain about every conceivable in-game topic.

...But "the way they were meant to be played" is entirely how you assume it is intended, when in reality, "how it is meant to be played" means something different to everyone. You are passing it off as objective when it is entirely subjective. In effect, you are implicitly claiming a universality to your value system for online Pokemon. You are clinging to moralistic ideals of what the game should be, only the value of these ideals is never substantiated (hence my earlier claim that your argument is circular). Why is a game, given to us on the cartridge with no ruleset, "how the game is meant to be played"? Because it is the purest form? But that too is circular. I am legitimately puzzled by this assertion.

If that is a misinterpretation, then you really need to dial back your rhetoric, because I don't know how else I could possibly interpret it.

 

[Khaotic Kebab]

You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are a wimpy cop-out.

No. I'm communicating that people b*tch about the game too much.

You are communicating that tiering and other rulesets are the result of unsubstantiated self-indulgence and entitlement.

No. I'm communcating that the game plays just fine without them.
I'm not interested in hearing about the unbalanced metagame, so don't bother.

"taking it seriously." I see no justification for looking down on someone for this, as people tend to take their hobbies seriously, however trivial they seem to outsiders.

You're villainising me in an attempt to make your view seem more agreeable. Low.
I respect others' hobbies, of course. You're conveniently missing the term "TOO seriously". It's a kid's game, for Christ's sake. And if over-devoting yourself to such a thing isn't questionable, I don't know what is.

Well, sure we can. Imagine if I said this about basketball: "What are you gonna do about it if someone tackles your point guard? Exactly, you can't do anything." You might find hard fouling in basketball to be more disagreeable than OHKO moves, and you might very well be right, but rulesets are created to govern a game and make it better. You can disagree with how well they actually do that, but your post appears to be attacking the legitimacy of any ruleset with the assumption that we should be favoring the game as it is given to us.

The key difference between Pokèmon and basketball being that the rules are optional in Pokèmon. My post questions the legitimacy of optional rules. My thinking is, "If the rules are optional, why follow them?" You may think, "To balance the game". That's something I honestly don't care about. If I don't have to follow the rules, I won't.

Why is this the case? Why should it be the case? state this as if it is a fact, but this is actually a very conservative argument masquerading as common sense; you are assigning greater value to a "pure" state of the game, which is assumed to be superior to one that is altered by humans, yet this is circularly justified. What is wrong with changing a game?

The NBA introduced the three-point line in 1979. If I went back and time and said "don't add the three-point line: if there's something you don't like about the game, you don't play it. It's that simple," I would sound ridiculous.

This is why I interpret your post as communicating that there is something wrong with us changing the game, or something right about it in its purest state. Yet as a competitive game, Pokemon is very flawed. Even with the tiering system Smogon has adopted, it remains very flawed. The subject matter of this thread, the Uber tier, is a pretty good example of that. All these rulesets try to do is make it better, just like three-pointers have made basketball more exciting.

You're reading into it too much. I can sum up my point with, "It's fine the way it is."
I won't deny preferring things that haven't been tampered with, though. It feels like the way the developers wanted us to play the game, and adding rules of our own is like telling the developers, "Your work isn't good enough".

...But "the way they were meant to be played" is entirely how you assume it is intended, when in reality, "how it is meant to be played" means something different to everyone. You are passing it off as objective when it is entirely subjective. In effect, you are implicitly claiming a universality to your value system for online Pokemon. You are clinging to moralistic ideals of what the game should be, only the value of these ideals is never substantiated (hence my earlier claim that your argument is circular). Why is a game, given to us on the cartridge with no ruleset, "how the game is meant to be played"? Because it is the purest form? But that too is circular. I am legitimately puzzled by this assertion.

And this last misinterpretation is just because of my wording. It is subjective.
But really, games were created with the intention of entertainment, and when you overthink, stress, and just find fault in how the game works, it stops being fun. It's like "Pro" gamers looking down on "Casuals", whose only crime is enjoying the game for what it is rather than playing compulsively. That's why I've always found Gaming as a lifestyle choice to be ridiculous.

^That's what I meant.

 

[Anti]

Ugh, a brewing multiquote war. Let's try this instead:

I'm not interested in hearing about the unbalanced metagame, so don't bother.

None of us are interested in hearing about how we take the game too seriously, so don't bother.

At least not from someone who is so proudly closed-minded.

We would love to talk about tiering philosophy, as that is the thread's topic, but you are dragging it into the mud by saying that people who adhere to tiers make questionable life choices, among other things. Your rhetoric is moralistic, condescending, and disrespectful. I don't know what you are hoping to accomplish except to assert your own righteousness if you openly state to have an active disinterest in the ruleset that this thread's topical tier adheres to...