Prefer banning Pokémon instead of banning abilities/moves/etc

[Zarel]

I've pushed this before, but in light of the recent Shadow Tag ban, I want to try again.

I think it's better to ban Pokémon than to ban anything else.

I have a lot of reasons, so let me go through a few of the biggest ones.

1. This is literally what the tier system is for.

We sort Pokémon into tiers: Ubers, OU, BL, UU, etc.

And we sort Pokémon as a whole. We don't say Shaymin-S with Air Slash is Uber and without Air Slash is UU. We tier it by its best set, and put it in Ubers.

Banning things in one tier and not another conflicts with this goal. If Politoed is NU because Drizzle is banned in UU, but it's allowed to have Drizzle in OU, then its tier isn't reflective of the Pokémon anymore. For a tier system to make sense, all the formats have to have as similar rules as possible.

On the flip side, If Gothitelle is Uber but UU bans Shadow Tag, it makes zero sense for Gothitelle to be banned in UU. You're not playing under any of the rules that caused Gothitelle to be banned in the first place.

2. Banning Pokémon doesn't complicate the ruleset.

The rules for a tier should be as simple as possible.

If you ban a Pokémon, you don't add any new rules; the existing "no Ubers" rule covers it.

If you ban an ability, that adds a rule. This is sometimes necessary, but it should never be the default.

3. Pokémon bans show up in the teambuilder; other bans don't.

It's just nicer to be able to communicate a ban to a user as directly as possible.

4. Conclusion

I could list a lot more reasons, but I'm not as long-winded as I used to be. I just want to clarify that I'm not against all non-pokemon bans. Some, like Evasion Clause, are necessary. I'm just saying that I'd rather ban two or even three Pokémon than one Ability.

 

[Ojama]

given we cannot nerf any pokemon we deem too broken ourselves like every other e-sport can, why don't we see complex bans as a way to nerf them and have some sort of control over the game we play and also as a way to keep following the convictions and principles we strive for. i really don't get why we diabolize the idea of complex banning and why it feels like we are saying a dirty word whenever we dare mention it.

ive always been advocating for a case by case policy when it comes to tiering decisions because of what we are and what we have been representing for all these years. we aim to play the healthiest and best metagame possible for every tier, and for that we sometimes need to go through a few complex bans.

we are smarter than that and i strongly believe we should always look at the bigger picture and explore every possible option instead of jumping on the easy solution. we don't need nor have to simplify the tiering rules because we want everything to be clean and sorted into squares.

if a pokemon has access to several abilities, i see absolutely no reason why we should straight ban the pokemon if it is considered too strong with one of its abilities. we have been playing for too many years to know that one ability can turn a metagame upside down and that one pokemon's role can be entirely different depending on its ability. let's not take the easy route and let's make the effort to deconstruct the prejudices and closed minds surrounding the complex bans.

 

[Stratos]

I think people are missing the point of this thread? The idea in the OP is that there are generally two ways to ban a non-Pokemon broken element:

1. We can ban the element itself. The main advantage of this is that it's the smallest ban possible which means the most options remain in lower tiers.
2. We can ban all Pokemon which can abuse that element. The main advantage of this is simplicity in ruleset and clarity for new players.

Zarel is just saying that he generally prefers the latter option. The only post I've actually seen argue against this is Ojama's...

Nobody (in this thread) is trying to overturn the STag ban. The proposal is just, rather than expressing it as "STag is banned," express it as "Wobuffett, Wynaut, Gothita, Gothorita, and Gothitelle are now Ubers."

In this specific case, it's easy for me to agree with Zarel. Preserving Infiltrator Wobbuffet obviously adds fucking nothing, and preserving Competitive Gothitelle probably doesn't add much more (it added nothing in SM but maybe thanosdex changes that)?

In the general case, I'm not sure I can agree with Zarel. Things that immediately come to mind are Excadrill and Garchomp in BW, both of which added valuable options that improved the meta when their broken ability was banned. We'd really be losing something to ban the entire mon. It's definitely a balancing act and I'm really not sure where I stand, but I think I prefer having fewer Pokemon in Ubers, in general?

 

[chaos]

Please, no more posts in this topic about how much weight to assign to tour player opinions. Deleted one and will delete anything about it following this post.

 

[Colonel M]

Stratos If the discussion is just "how best to express a given ban", I don't have a strong opinion, as it ultimately results in the same metagame.

I'm not sure that is the point of this topic though? I think the question is: what is the best way to express a complex ban in terms of a simple ban? The ban reasoning for Wobbuffet centered entirely on Goth + Shadow Tag. So, do you ban the Goth line, or do you ban Shadow Tag? Zarel is arguing the former, OU council went with the latter.

All else equal I prefer to maximize the # of Pokemon that have a tier they can shine in. I have no idea what Gen 8 Ubers is like, but maybe Goth can find a niche there. If STag Wobb isn't broken it can probably find a home; without STag it is worthless. And in the event that Wobb is deemed broken it can just be banned. So I suppose I agree with Zarel.

I don't really see this as agreeing with Zarel. Hell, it might even go against some of the grind.

Let's analyze things without complex bans for a moment. Right now I see one side (Zarel) wanting to ban Pokemon over abilities. On the other hand with chaos it seems to weigh more on the allowing of as many Pokemon in viable tiers as possible. This alone already has a contradiction on what both sides want while at the same time is something we already do (to some extent).

I'm going to use Gen 5's Excadrill as a pivotal example here because this is a Pokemon that has also had an influence in, what I would argue, as complex bans. I'm going to assume here that the reader hasn't played Generation 5 (but has some Pokemon knowledge) just to flesh out the details. Originally Excadrill was a huge menace because it brought Speed control to Sand teams via Sand Rush. Excadrill also has quite a good amount of power behind its attacks thanks to Swords Dance, dual STABs, Rock Slide, while also sporting utility with Stealth Rock, Rapid Spin, and a possible usage of other abilities like Mold Breaker and Sand Force.

So we've established that Excadrill is fairly versatile, and with Sand Rush created problems. We went and did what I feel would be Zarel's proposal at the time - we banned Excadrill, case closed. Later down the line we made other adjustments to Excadrill until we eventually banned Sand Rush, which affected Sandslash and Stoutland.

So we have three choices. We could cancel Excadrill altogether, a Pokemon that has otherwise been a healthy addition to the metagame (though some disagree I think having viable spinners in BW like Driller are nice). The next option is banning Sand Rush, which shuts out Stoutland and Sandslash from using the ability, but it allows them to still coexist. We have more options too - one option could have been a complex ban of Sand Rush + Excadrill, which would preserve everything with Sandslash and Stoutland while retaining Excadrill legal. There is technically a fourth option, which bans everything with Sand Rush because it's argued the ability and not the individual Pokemon itself is broken, which would banish all 3. I'm not saying any of these are right or wrong solutions.

Let's head back to Gen 4 where we had Gligar and Gliscor as abusive Baton Passers with Sand Veil. Under the theory of Zarel banning Gligar and Gliscor is likely the easier approach, whereas chaos's would want to preserve these Pokemon. We approach this in two different ways, and while I think neither are wrong they could be contradicting to what each side is looking for.

The problems are tiering is messy and theres a lot to temper and refine. We've been more open with complex bans, and while I will admit that I've never been a huge fan of them (mostly because I don't care about preserving Pokemon like Baton Pass Shedinja, no offense GMars ), I don't think the OU council, or any council, doesn't take things like this into consideration overall. Are things perfect with how they're handled overall? Probably not - if we want to strive to make as many Pokemon within a tier where they can thrive, we need to make vastly different approaches from the norm. We have multiple Arceus formes and Genesect as two examples of Uber Pokemon that don't thrive whatsoever nor have significant niches in the tiers. So how do we approach those, then?

I get what I said is a lot of hot air, confusing, and probably things that would piss off a lot of people? but while I understand challenging the status quo can be a good thing. It's that I think there are a lot of gray areas from previous (and arguably current tiering) overall that would need to be addressed. We strive to be a competitive website overall, but if we want to do things like maximize the amount of Pokemon that are usable in various metagames you have more convoluted options that you have to explore - complex bans being the big Pandora's Box to open. With the challenges ahead if we want to seriously re-evaluate how we ban things overall, we need to make sure to address slippery slopes that can come from complex bans or going one direction or the other. It may be even an idea to look back and re-define and strengthen tiering philosophy overall.

If I'm misinterpreting I'm sorry. I'm not a person who is in a real camp here at the moment, but more that I think that if we want to re-evaluate how to handle bans differently we need better baselines and ground rules first. Past bans and suspects can help with evaluating which philosophy was more towards the aim of competitive play while possibly adhering the goal of maximizing the amount of usable Pokemon in multiple tiers - that is if this is the end goal of Smogon.com/forums.

 

[Zarel]

Okay, so, as a general announcement here: Now that I understand that a majority think Wobb is still broken, I'm fine with a Shadow Tag ban. This thread is no longer about Shadow Tag getting banned, but rather just general tiering philosophy about banning Pokémon instead of moves.

 

[atomicllamas]

So I tend to agree with the OP in theory, and it would be more simplistic if we limited ourself to just banning Pokemon rather than abilities / items / moves / etc. but I think in practice it tends to be closer to the tiering philosophy if we don’t limit how we ban problematic elements. When I was a tier leader, my goal was two-fold, first, to ensure that the tier was relatively competitively balanced, such that the person who used a “better” team and played better would win a significant majority of the time. And second, to do so in such a way that maximizes the number of viable team building choices. Both because a smaller ban list is preferential for optics, and because a larger selection of team building options, at least personally, increases the “funness” of the meta (and at some level we’re all playing this game to have fun). On some level these things can conflict, and there can be metas with such a diversity of threats that it becomes impossible to prepare for all of them, lowering the competitiveness (DPP NU comes to my mind), but I believe that in general if there are different ways to approach a ban such that condition 1 is satisfied, I think Smogon should prioritize satisfying condition two to the highest extent possible.

For a relevant example of this, we can look at something like the Moody clause. Moody Pokémon did need to be removed from previous generations, as it violated the competitive aspect. But rather than ban the individual Pokémon (Smeargle, Bibarrel, Glalie, etc.) it was better to ban Moody, which allowed Smeargle to have a niche in BW RU, UU, and (idk what I’m talking about but maybe) OU. I also agree with something (I believe) teal6 said, and that had those Pokémon and Bidoof been listed as Uber in gen 5, it would be much more delegitimizing to Smogon’s tier list to outsiders than banning the ability moody. Another example is that prior to the decision to tier megas and their base formed separately, no one was advocating banning base form Gengar or Kangaskhan to Ubers, just the mega stones. I have a couple other examples I could run through (and will if they are wanted), but my point is basically the following. While I agree we should generally favor banning Pokémon, I don’t think a hard rule should be set. The purpose of tier leaders and councils is to come up with logical solutions to issues raised by the player base, that not only lead to competitively balances tiers, but also tiers with an abundance of play styles and a legitimate looking ban list. The vast majority of the time that will result in the banning of Pokémon. But we shouldn’t handcuff ourselves to that.

If this is just a different wording than what the OP is getting at, then my bad, but in that case I feel like we already do abide by this. It just doesn’t feel like it right now because it’s a new gen and it’s a natural time to revisit clauses and set the “parameters” of the game we’re going to be playing.

 

[Aaronboyer]

This is an open-ended question posed mainly at the outlines described in the OP, but would any decision reached here apply retroactively? The very first metagame and community I felt "at home" with was ORAS PU, and during that generation there are two very good examples I'd like to use here in Chatot and Machoke. More in-depth discussion can be found in this Policy Review thread from three years ago, but essentially Machoke was a more straight-forward decision because it was No Guard in combination with Dynamic Punch was the broken element. Chatot versus Chatter was not as clear and even evoked The Immortal to ask:

I'm curious about your stance on Chatter/Chatot. I view it in the same respect as Machoke. Chatot's Special Attack, Speed, and possibly its access to other moves (Nasty Plot / Sub), is what makes Chatter an issue. I personally think that Chatot should have been banned and not Chatter. Do you share the same viewpoint?

If this is applied retroactively, ORAS PU would lose Chatot (not a fantastic Pokemon by any means; sitting at B Rank currently) and I'm sure a few other past gen metagames would be slightly altered.

 

[Zarel]

Aaronboyer No, I don't want to suggest it retroactively.

 

[Zarel]

given we cannot nerf any pokemon we deem too broken ourselves like every other e-sport can, why don't we see complex bans as a way to nerf them and have some sort of control over the game we play and also as a way to keep following the convictions and principles we strive for. i really don't get why we diabolize the idea of complex banning and why it feels like we are saying a dirty word whenever we dare mention it.

In the general case, I'm not sure I can agree with Zarel. Things that immediately come to mind are Excadrill and Garchomp in BW, both of which added valuable options that improved the meta when their broken ability was banned. We'd really be losing something to ban the entire mon. It's definitely a balancing act and I'm really not sure where I stand, but I think I prefer having fewer Pokemon in Ubers, in general?

I think it was fine to ban Sand Veil Garchomp, it made sense as an extension of Evasion Clause.

Otherwise, though, this is the exact thing my post argues against. I don't know what I can do but repeat the argument.

Let me put it this way: I bet Arceus wouldn't be broken if it wasn't allowed to have any move above 50 BP. You'd really be losing something by banning it entirely, too.

Clearly, we need to draw the line somewhere. And I think it makes sense to draw it at the tier system. Excadrill wouldn't be gone entirely – just up in Ubers, with all the other pokemon that are too strong for OU – it is too strong for OU, exactly the same way Arceus is.

or a relevant example of this, we can look at something like the Moody clause. Moody Pokémon did need to be removed from previous generations, as it violated the competitive aspect. But rather than ban the individual Pokémon (Smeargle, Bibarrel, Glalie, etc.) it was better to ban Moody, which allowed Smeargle to have a niche in BW RU, UU, and (idk what I’m talking about but maybe) OU.

Moody is also an extension of Evasion Clause, so I don't mind its ban. It's especially obvious because the moment Evasion was removed from the possible boosts, we unanimously unban it.

The thing I'm going for is definitely, if an ability is available on a lot of Pokémon and broken for reasons not obviously "this Pokémon is too strong", I'm a fan of banning it.

Things I think are good bans:
- Baton Pass
- Shadow Tag
- Sand Veil
- Moody
- Evasion Clause

Things I think should have just banned the Pokémon:
- Drought, Drizzle
- Sand Rush

Basically, if it's serious enough to deserve the word "Clause" added after it, it's fine being a ban.

Another example is that prior to the decision to tier megas and their base formed separately, no one was advocating banning base form Gengar or Kangaskhan to Ubers, just the mega stones.

A lot of people were, including me. I was fine with tiering megas separately, but I would rather have banned the base formes than the items, and I was very loudly complaining about all the mega stone bans and pushing for separate tiering because of this.

While I agree we should generally favor banning Pokémon, I don’t think a hard rule should be set. The purpose of tier leaders and councils is to come up with logical solutions to issues raised by the player base, that not only lead to competitively balances tiers, but also tiers with an abundance of play styles and a legitimate looking ban list. The vast majority of the time that will result in the banning of Pokémon. But we shouldn’t handcuff ourselves to that.

What I'm looking for isn't a hard rule, but I am looking for people not to ban abilities without even discussing banning the Pokémon instead, which I still see happening quite often.