-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
OU Suspect Testing Proposals
- Thread starter X5Dragon
- Start date
With regards to 1), clear definitions need to be made that the community abides by when describing Pokemon using these specific terminologies. If any recent posts on these forums are evident, people are confusing strategies revolving around Evasion and OHKO clauses as "broken" rather than simply undesirable competitive attributes because the word broken is being thrown around a lot and is used interchangeably and improperly.
I agree with the 66% majority vote.
This post right here defines what I feel has been an issue with the Gen V/V2 suspect process, and it identifies the root of the problem that should be tackled prior to Gen VI if the community is to have a simplified, easy, and quick(er) suspect testing process.
GameFreak is inevitably going to continue releasing more and more potent threats as the generations continue, and the power creep is only going to become more obnoxious and apparent. Smogon would like to have a balanced metagame, but this becomes increasingly difficult when we have an addition of 100-200+ Pokemon each generation, and just as many or more moves and abilities introduced, along with any changes to mechanics. Rather than come to accept this and realize that Pokemon is at its core horrendously balanced based on the cartridge gameplay, a portion of the community has sought to achieve a balanced metagame by removing dominating (not broken) strategies from OU to band-aide the problem. This philosophy is what is responsible for the suspect decisions revolving around Drizzle, the Drizzle + Swift Swim complex ban, and the entire tier it affected. A lot of players would say Gen V is a complete mess, and I would agree with them.
I believe there should be two criteria for what constitutes a ban:
1. Broken: A Pokemon, move, item, or ability that is overpowered to a degree in which its use in competitive play is mandatory in order to remain competitively successful. A Pokemon, move, item, or ability that provides an advantage that cannot reasonably be overcome through player skill or experience at the highest level without the reliance or use of the same Pokemon, move, item, or ability.
2. Uncompetitive: A Pokemon, move, item, or ability that removes strategic element, skill, or relevant choice from either player by emphasizing reliance on luck based outcomes.
What shouldn't constitute a ban or a suspect test are things that people don't like, things that are "easy to use" or are "spammable" (looking at you, U-Turn advocates), things "without counters", and things that "centralize the metagame." There should be no need to resort to complex bans under any circumstances.
These have always been, and are now more than ever, poor arguments to propose for a suspect test. There will always be strategies that are frowned upon despite their relative balance or imbalance, and this notion alone should not be grounds to suspect test them by that merit alone. Something being spammable, or "easy", is a very childish competitive mentality, and it doesn't illustrate somethings relative power or whether or not a player has the tools available to handle said spammable strategy, Pokemon, move, tactic, et cetera. The whole counters argument has been dead since Gen IV. You cannot rock, paper, scissors counter Pokemon anymore. There's too many overpowered threats to consider for you to do that, and with the introduction of Team Preview, there needs to be an emphasis on outplaying your opponent if you want to beat those uncounterable Pogeys. Using a suspect test to remove these threats that are hard to deal whilst not being broken by definition constitutes anti-competitive incentive, and a philosophy that promotes banning things as opposed to trying to beat them. As for centralization, that's the side effect of Pokemon that are at the top of the food chain. There will always be Pokemon at the top of the food chain, even if they aren't broken or even overpowered, relatively speaking.
In short, I believe it is within competitive spirit to treat each new generation as different from the last, both in player exprience and competitive balance, and only to test and ban in accordance to the most urgent and damaging of problems presented. I do not advocate a process that believes in shaping the metagame to suit our arbitrary preferences.
Last edited:
The points mentioned in the topic were the major things we discussed at various places and felt were worthy of presenting. Other minor points that were mentioned was expanding the number of OU council members thinking it would speed up the testing process and bringing diversity and new ideas to council discussion (later was dropped because we felt the the council can moniter it's needs by itself) and raising the requirements for voting to 2000 ACRE in addition to glicko for a more quality pool of voters (was dropped because people felt that wouldn't solve the problem either way).
Anyone else is welcome to offer new proposals...
Anyone else is welcome to offer new proposals...
Last edited:
Okay seriously this argument about complex bans is made every single time someone brings up changes to suspect testing, and it goes in circles, shits up threads, and completely undermines all valid points within the thread because that's all everyone ends up caring about. This thread has tons of valid ideas, but arguing about complex bans completely obscures them. Just saying. (edit: missed the last few posts, kinda ninja'd :/)
Now I think it'd be prudent to be able to have threads concerning unbanning Pokemon as well as banning them, as well as procedures for said. Should unbanning follow the same supermajority method? I personally don't think so because a controversial (under supermajority) Pokemon shouldn't be banned. If there isn't even a majority pushing for it to stay banned, why would it be? If there isn't a supermajority for unbanning it though I'd say it should be reevaluated after two suspect phases (assuming similar periods to how early BW2 went). That lets the metagame adapt to it and takes away the "new toy syndrome" to an extent.
Honestly, I'd like to possibly see Pokemon like Thundurus and Excadrill given shots in OU at some point, and while that may not even be feasible, it's still good to have procedures for the future.
Also, what Ulevo said is absolutely brilliant imo.
Now I think it'd be prudent to be able to have threads concerning unbanning Pokemon as well as banning them, as well as procedures for said. Should unbanning follow the same supermajority method? I personally don't think so because a controversial (under supermajority) Pokemon shouldn't be banned. If there isn't even a majority pushing for it to stay banned, why would it be? If there isn't a supermajority for unbanning it though I'd say it should be reevaluated after two suspect phases (assuming similar periods to how early BW2 went). That lets the metagame adapt to it and takes away the "new toy syndrome" to an extent.
Honestly, I'd like to possibly see Pokemon like Thundurus and Excadrill given shots in OU at some point, and while that may not even be feasible, it's still good to have procedures for the future.
Also, what Ulevo said is absolutely brilliant imo.
haunter
Banned deucer.
The point of achieving a supermajority is to make sure than more of a mere 50%+1 of the voting pool is in favor of changing the status quo (for both bans and unbans). I'm actually all for increasing the percentage of votes required to ban\unban stuff, so that we can avoid other cases where literally half of the community is satisfied with the results of a suspect test and the other half is dissatisfied with it.
With regards to the threshold for unbanning Pokemon, a lot of people feel that it is easier to ban a Pokemon than it is to unban a Pokemon. With this in mind, I think it is important to have the same majority threshold to ban a Pokemon as it is to unban one. If a Pokemon can be proven to be a healthy addition to a tier through suspect testing, I do not see why it should have to overcome more hurdles to do so than what is necessary in order to ban an unhealthy Pokemon. Banning is a serious consideration regardless of where the shift is, and should be treated as such. If it is decided 66% is needed to change the status quo and send a Pokemon from OU to Ubers, I believe it should be 66% that is required to move something from Ubers to OU.
blitzlefan
shake it off!
Personally, I'd like to see the percentage to ban / unban increased, simply because as of the moment, Pokemon that get banned rarely come back to OU. Despite how the metagame changes, Pokemon that users find "broken" will be tested / retested until they're banned, while Pokemon that languish in Ubers rarely see the light of day. It's more of a permanent shift, so I'd like to see it slightly harder to ban something, as if it's broken, hopefully there'll be a decent majority voting to ban it. Increased fluidity between the tiers would be a great thing, both to ban and unban.
You can't avoid cases like this.
If 55% vote for Landorus ban, but it is not banned because 60% are required even 55% of the community are dissatisfied.
I don't really get this whole percentage discussion. Whatever percentage you choose, you will have close votes. And in any case there can be at least 50% of the voters dissatisfied. Just the 50%+1 mere insures, that not more then 50% of the voters are dissatisfied.
But I like the idea of retesting mons like 2 months later that got banned with an <60% majority. Because even if you play your ~100 suspect games, you can never see the whole impact a ban/unban has on a metagame. So if people can play a longer time with that change (and tournaments take place with the change!) you will now much more if you retest the mon later.
I think that as a competitive community we should only ban what is considered broken/uncompetitive.
For every ev, iv and nature combination, there are potentially an infinite amount of pokemon with the same selection. Therefore, these do not make a pokemon unique. Only the typing, movepool, ability and base stats of a pokemon make it unique (that are relevant in competitive), so it only makes sense to talk about these things when considering whether or not a pokemon is broken. Also, typing and base stats are fixed so we can disregard these as well.
If we only ban what is necessarily broken, and we accept that moves and abilities can be broken* (think weather, SR etc.) then it is only natural for complex bans to occur. If a pokemon can retain its distinctiveness after the broken aspect(s) are removed then I think it should be given a chance. Like if it had an alternative ability. It should only be banned if it's broken regardless of its ability or moves (very unlikely).
I think slippery slope is exaggerated because "competitve pokemon is based on the assumption that all players have perfect pokemon" (introduction to competitive pokemon). Therefore, it doesn't make sense to talk about lvl 80 Arceus, lvl 70 Kyogre or lvl 1 Magikarp. Besides, Kyogre and friends are banned by default according to an initial banlist (which we take for granted, even though in reality some of them might not be broken).
* broken is taken to mean either broken or uncompetitive (i.e. moody, ohko moves etc.)
For every ev, iv and nature combination, there are potentially an infinite amount of pokemon with the same selection. Therefore, these do not make a pokemon unique. Only the typing, movepool, ability and base stats of a pokemon make it unique (that are relevant in competitive), so it only makes sense to talk about these things when considering whether or not a pokemon is broken. Also, typing and base stats are fixed so we can disregard these as well.
If we only ban what is necessarily broken, and we accept that moves and abilities can be broken* (think weather, SR etc.) then it is only natural for complex bans to occur. If a pokemon can retain its distinctiveness after the broken aspect(s) are removed then I think it should be given a chance. Like if it had an alternative ability. It should only be banned if it's broken regardless of its ability or moves (very unlikely).
I think slippery slope is exaggerated because "competitve pokemon is based on the assumption that all players have perfect pokemon" (introduction to competitive pokemon). Therefore, it doesn't make sense to talk about lvl 80 Arceus, lvl 70 Kyogre or lvl 1 Magikarp. Besides, Kyogre and friends are banned by default according to an initial banlist (which we take for granted, even though in reality some of them might not be broken).
* broken is taken to mean either broken or uncompetitive (i.e. moody, ohko moves etc.)
haunter
Banned deucer.
The point of a supermajority is exactly to avoid cases like the recent Landorus' ban. And you're wrong, the Genesect vote wasn't close, at all. That's what I call a satisfying result.
Sometimes I feel a lot of people are banning threats because they are bored of the current metagame and are overeager for change. I'm sure there are perfectly valid arguments for both banning and retaining landorus-i but I don't believe everyone who voted to ban voted that way purely because they felt landorus-i was actually broken.
EDIT:
In case it wasn't obvious, I definitely support a supermajority vote for future tests.
EDIT:
In case it wasn't obvious, I definitely support a supermajority vote for future tests.
I do believe there should be a specific wait time in between both repeated suspect nominations that have failed to reach a majority and re-evaluations of a Pokemon that has been banned to Ubers. As you mentioned, being able to observe and analyze the implications of your ban in a respective tier is important, and it takes time.
Assuming the supermajority necessary to ban or unban something is 66%, I would suggest that if a Pokemon reaches a vote of less than 50%, it cannot be nominated again for a ban or unban until 3 months has passed. If it has reached above 50%, but not 66%, it will remain in its tier, but it can be nominated for another suspect test the following month.
I know, that people want to avoid cases like landorus.
But I can't see the point. I know that 60 out of 148 voters wanted to keep Landorus in OU and people complained, that you cannot ignore this voters. But you also cannot ignore the 84 people who voted landorus uber. If the comunity is splitted and roughly 50% want a mon banned and 50% do not, you will never have a statisfying result. But as I mentioned, I would support Lando to be tested again and also liked the old system of one super majority or 2 (or 3?) consecutive simple majorities to change status quo.
Genesect was 67% voting for a ban. So it was obviously not close.
But if we assume that 66% were needed to ban it, one more person voting OU instead of Uber would mean that Genesect stays OU. Which would mean, that the decision was kinda close and we ignored fucking 64% of the voters.
I also know Hyperbeem's argument of people not voting, because they think it is broken. But you can also say, that people want to keep it in OU, even though they think it is broken, because they want to play it or just don't like change. You basically have a percentage of voters voting because of stupid reason on both sides. You would have to change requirements for voters and not the percentages to solve this problem.
But I can't see the point. I know that 60 out of 148 voters wanted to keep Landorus in OU and people complained, that you cannot ignore this voters. But you also cannot ignore the 84 people who voted landorus uber. If the comunity is splitted and roughly 50% want a mon banned and 50% do not, you will never have a statisfying result. But as I mentioned, I would support Lando to be tested again and also liked the old system of one super majority or 2 (or 3?) consecutive simple majorities to change status quo.
Genesect was 67% voting for a ban. So it was obviously not close.
But if we assume that 66% were needed to ban it, one more person voting OU instead of Uber would mean that Genesect stays OU. Which would mean, that the decision was kinda close and we ignored fucking 64% of the voters.
I also know Hyperbeem's argument of people not voting, because they think it is broken. But you can also say, that people want to keep it in OU, even though they think it is broken, because they want to play it or just don't like change. You basically have a percentage of voters voting because of stupid reason on both sides. You would have to change requirements for voters and not the percentages to solve this problem.
I think we should consider a simple majority as a temporary ban as follows:
After voting on a suspect pokemon and whether or not it should be banned:
1) If the votes for ban are less than 50% + 1, then it is confirmed to be OU and not broken.
2) If the votes for banning it are more than 50% + 1, but less than a supermajority (eg. 2/3 = 66%), the it's banned temporarily, the metagame is played for another month, then a new vote occurs. If the second vote results in any majority simple or super, then it is banned, if not, then it is OU.
3) If the votes for banning constitute a super majority, it is banned from OU.
The issue I see with 2) is that if you want Smogon to follow a philosophy of banning Pokemon, moves, items, or abilities based on whether or not they are broken as opposed to banning based on majority preference within the community, then having a Pokemon temporarily leave a tier might prove to feel more enjoyable for the player if he or she doesn't like the Pokemon that was nominated for the temporary ban, and rather than objectively voting during its reassessment, may opt to ban it again due to bias.
Basically I think most of us agree on the principle but have a hard time hitting a middle ground. Another 2) solution is instead of temporarily banning a pokemon or letting it be for another month, is to keep both ladders active until the retest. So technically you still get a flavor of both worlds, with arguably better teams to face on the ladder with people no longer concerned about getting reqs by any means necessary.
I think it doesn't need to be mentioned but in case it does, you can only qualify to vote once before any voting happens, if a second vote is needed then the same people who get the reqs the first time will vote again.
Edit: The modified version:
1) If the votes for ban are less than 50% + 1, then it is confirmed to be OU and not broken.
2) If the votes for banning it are more than 50% + 1, but less than a supermajority (eg. 2/3 = 66%), then both ladders are kept for another month, then a new vote occurs. If the second vote results in any majority simple or super, then it is banned, if not, then it is OU.
3) If the votes for banning constitute a super majority, it is banned from OU.
I think it doesn't need to be mentioned but in case it does, you can only qualify to vote once before any voting happens, if a second vote is needed then the same people who get the reqs the first time will vote again.
Edit: The modified version:
1) If the votes for ban are less than 50% + 1, then it is confirmed to be OU and not broken.
2) If the votes for banning it are more than 50% + 1, but less than a supermajority (eg. 2/3 = 66%), then both ladders are kept for another month, then a new vote occurs. If the second vote results in any majority simple or super, then it is banned, if not, then it is OU.
3) If the votes for banning constitute a super majority, it is banned from OU.
I agree with there being a higher percentage required for banning. Banning a Pokemon from OU is quite a drastic measure, and not something that should be taken lightly, so I think a Pokemon should only get banned if it's plainly obvious that it needs to be. The way I see it, something that gets 55% of the vote to ban is not obviously ban-worthy. If 45% of voters think it shouldn't be banned, then it's probably not completely clear that it needs to be banned. I've seen some votes in the past where a Pokemon got 100% of the votes to ban, so are cases where it's plainly obvious to everybody that it needs to happen. I think two-thirds was a good cut-off personally.
I think it'd be good to have the second test under X5Dragon's proposal run concurrently with another suspect. Take the hype off the suspect and add another to the mix. It's also good imo to have two suspects if there are sufficient candidates (whether banning or unbanning) for both speed and lack of overpreparation for one threat. I like Pocket's idea of the suspect threads as opposed to nomination threads like we did for most of BW1. This system would run like that system except with the benefit of a council to judge the suspects and run discussions.
I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I do agree that we need more than just a simple majority to change the status quo. After all, bans and unbans are pretty significant changes, and so I believe they should require more than just half of the voters plus a swing vote. However, I just can't shake the feeling that 66% is a bit too high. Requiring 66% of all votes in order to ban/unban something would mean that even if 65% of voters (a sizable majority) voted to ban/unban something, they would be shut down by a little more than half as many votes on the other side. Perhaps there could be a smaller but still decisive majority that we could strive for? 60% seems like a good number that would require a good majority of votes to get something done, but it also wouldn't be quite as demanding as a 66% requirement. Worst-case scenario, we end up with 59% of voters being shut down by 41%, which is a more comfortable split than 65% vs 35%.
Another solution I'd be comfortable is going back to the system used earlier in 5th Gen, pretty much what X5Dragon has mentioned: a super majority to ban/unban something would result in said action, while less than a simple majority would result in no action. A simple majority would result in a second test and, if the second test resulted in a simple majority or better, then the action would be taken. I believe this was fair since if a ban/unban received a simple majority, it would give players another chance to test the suspect and give more thought to it. Achieving a simple majority for two tests in a row would be a bit safer than banning/unbanning the suspect after a single simple majority vote, and so I think it would make a decent compromise.
Another solution I'd be comfortable is going back to the system used earlier in 5th Gen, pretty much what X5Dragon has mentioned: a super majority to ban/unban something would result in said action, while less than a simple majority would result in no action. A simple majority would result in a second test and, if the second test resulted in a simple majority or better, then the action would be taken. I believe this was fair since if a ban/unban received a simple majority, it would give players another chance to test the suspect and give more thought to it. Achieving a simple majority for two tests in a row would be a bit safer than banning/unbanning the suspect after a single simple majority vote, and so I think it would make a decent compromise.
One thing I'd like to bring up is the megathreads themselves. The threads are seriously bad in terms of their quality. One thing that this is due to is people arguing a bit too passionately and not being rational enough. This brings up one thing I think is very important, and it's that while there are some very good posts coming from good players in those threads, there are some posts which are seriously just trash or are just too loaded. What the problem is that when people want to try things out, they are already influenced by a loud minority, or even just the majority if everyone thinks one way. What the suspect tests are there for are for people to play with the suspects and watch how other teams deal with the threat by themselves. The tests are there so people can come to their own decision, not there for particularly vocal users to influence how they should vote. You have people already in a mindset before they've started playing. Once you have a pre-conceived notion in your head, it is very difficult to change it. If I continuously say to a new player that Kyogre is not broken as an extreme example, they would believe it until they have actually gone and tried it out, and this is surprisingly hard to change even when they have got their own experience. This is why I think while the megathreads should stay, they should be there strictly to discuss strategies, novel sets, etc etc. This not only stops frequent arguments erupting in them, but also keeps bias away from our suspect voters who are supposed to come to their decisions without outside influences.
Personally I think that the 66%+1 super majority vote might not be enough. I might be wrong on this, and would have to change my mind on the results it would yield, but I'd almost prefer a supermajority vote of 3/4, or 75%+1. The reason I bring this up is because there needs to be a clear distinction between what is simply overpowered and what is definitively broken and needs to be banned. Threats that are broken are typically more than just controversial, and are usually apparent to most if not everyone. There's a lot less room to debate over it. Shaymin-S for the time it was available is a perfect example of this, receiving 100% of the votes. I do believe we've had similar results before with suspects like Darkrai, though I don't recall the exact numbers. Another reason I feel this is ideal is because with the threshold being higher, it means that suspects are likely to stay around longer. The benefit to this is two-fold. It gives the community time to adapt and deal with the specific threat, find counter-strategies or ways of handling it, and coming to a more conclusive consensus. The other benefit is that if it doesn't reach the supermajority vote the first time, but is problematic, it will become more apparent as time goes on and is much more likely to receive a much more definitive vote the next time it is assessed by the voters since there will be pressure to remove it from the tier.
Banning is a serious last resort option, so it should require a significant number of votes. Maybe 75%+1 would be too harsh, and I'm sure some people reading would feel that way for sure. I'm uncertain too. But I do think the number could be higher than even 2/3 or 66%+1.
Is there a consensus on how the previously banned Pokemon, like titled legendaries, will be treated once we have X and Y on simulators? Will some/all of them be available in OU the way we handled it in Gen V? I have suggestions for how that should be conducted.