2v2 Ladder

[rory]

IMPORTANT: I guess I should add this to the OP. For the firsttwo weeks following sb2's release, there will be no banlist or clauses.

When Shoddy Battle 2 comes out we are going to need to have rules and a conservative banlist ready for a 2v2 ladder. I don't want to ban anything that's even remotely close to being considered for OU.

Here is what I had in mind for the banlist:

Arceus
Darkrai
Deoxys
Deoxys-A
Dialga
Giratina
Giratina-O
Groudon
Ho-oh
Kyogre
Lugia
Mewtwo
Palkia
Rayquaza

It's more than likely that I'm not going to add anything else onto the list, but I will address the singles ubers that didn't make it on this list, and why.

Deoxys-D: While it may be hard to take down in singles, bulky Pokemon like Deoxys-D are easier to take down because you can attack with both of your Pokemon. It is also unreasonable to think that Deoxys-D can simply use toxic and outstall its opponents for two reasons. One, any bulky pokemon with low attack stats is taunt bait, and two, even if the opponent has a hard time with Deoxys-D, if it can't use any support moves, Deoxys-D is essentially dead weight on the team and the opponent can pick off the other Pokemon one by one.

Deoxys-S: It is highly likely that it will become uber but I don't think we should put it there hastily. I'm fairly open to argruments regarding this one.

Wobbuffet: Obviusly this is going to be the most controversial omission on the initial banlist. My reasons for not listing it are very similar to Deoxys-D. It is the biggest taunt bait in the world, and counter and mirrior coat are less effective when your opponent can team up on wobb and take it out before it has a chance to retaliate. It is certainly worth testing.

The rest just aren't clearly uber, so I didn't put them on there.

 

[bartozio]

Seems good to me.
One more reason why wobuffet shouldn't be uber:
He doesn't have to be attacked.
You can just take down your opponents other pokes until only wob is left standing. This means he will mainly be trapping pokes and using supportive attacks. So not much of a tread.

Hope banlist will stay this way.

 

[scampy]

Agreeing with that list, although don't judge Wobby too hastily guys; he might be taunt bait, but then that's why you lock him in with things that don't have taunt. ;)

Are we beginning with non-uber Mew, or was it left off the list by mistake?

What about clauses? Are we starting off with the standard single clauses (sleep, evasion, etc), or beggining everything from scratch?

 

[rory]

I left mew off the list purposely, it'll likely go Uber though.

I think we should just go with the standard single clauses, I see no reason for them to change from singles to doubles.

 

[Sidd]

Why is Tyranitar not on that list? Tyranitar cannot be used due to the fact that it's evolution is present at Lv55, thus excluded from VGC requirements.

 

[Objection]

I think this is for Shoddy Battle 2, not the VGC.

 

[Cathy]

I left mew off the list purposely, it'll likely go Uber though.

I think we should just go with the standard single clauses, I see no reason for them to change from singles to doubles.

Although Shoddy Battle 1 does offer a Sleep Clause that changes game mechanics, it's a bad idea to base our rules off changed game mechanics.

Sleep Clause has to be based off an auto-forfeit -- which raises the question of what to do with Dark Void. We can either do nothing, in which case Dark Void is radically nerfed, because you'd rarely if ever want to use it, or we can increase the number of pokemon allowed to be sleeping (maybe to two) -- or perhaps remove Sleep Clause entirely. I've heard some people who play doubles say that Sleep isn't that big of a deal.

I'm not advocating any one of these options; I am pointing out that it needs discussion.

 

[rory]

To me the ideal solution would be to have the sleep clause give you auto-loss if you broke it, and to ban Dark Void. Also, to cut down on fatal mistakes made, when you chose a move that might cause you to violate sleep clause a popup could come up or something.

Edit: actually Dark Void doesn't need to be banned if you get the auto-loss if it puts both your opponents to sleep. If that was the case no one would even use it over spore.

 

[scampy]

Sounds good. I can see some people complaining about the natural cure dilema, but I guess everyone will just have to make their moves so that this never happens in the first place.

(By the natural cure dilema I mean the following scenario: I inflict sleep status on Blissey, and so my opponent is likely to switch out. Now, I could sleep the incoming Pokemon, because Blissey is likely to have natural cure and will lose the status as she switches out (thus not breaking sleep clause). However, she might instead have serene grace, meaning that I do break sleep clause and lose the match.)

 

[User 12783]

Sounds good. I can see some people complaining about the natural cure dilema, but I guess everyone will just have to make their moves so that this never happens in the first place.

(By the natural cure dilema I mean the following scenario: I inflict sleep status on Blissey, and so my opponent is likely to switch out. Now, I could sleep the incoming Pokemon, because Blissey is likely to have natural cure and will lose the status as she switches out (thus not breaking sleep clause). However, she might instead have serene grace, meaning that I do break sleep clause and lose the match.)

That is probably a risk you have to take then if you decide you have the balls to make that move. Most people wouldn't try it, but in the cases of the select few, I like the high rewards and high risks.

 

[DJ Forte]

I think we should change the sleep clause to 3 pokes asleep. Just because a move can put two pokes asleep at the same time should not make it unusable in the metagame. Most people should expect this, or have it so it only two and if they are on their last two pokes not to use it. Thats what I think the sleep clause should be.

EDIT: Thats assuming that it is a 6 vs 6, double "2 v 2" battle.

 

[TheFourthChaser]

Why is Tyranitar not on that list? Tyranitar cannot be used due to the fact that it's evolution is present at Lv55, thus excluded from VGC requirements.

While this wouldn't apply to the ladder why not have a VGC clause or something for people testing teams and such for these tourneys(even though the 2009 tourneys will be over by the time SB2 comes out)?

And are we going with 6v6 or 4v4? That would effect Sleep Clause's decision wouldn't it?

I see nothing wrong with the Banned List but Deoxys-S might need some testing once this comes out.

EDIT: Now that I look at the list closer I see that Manaphy is missing, with Rain Support this thing is a monster and don't you think Rain will be common in the upcoming Doubles Metagame? But I'm also not quite sure, Manaphy might need Doubles Testing as well as Deoxys-S.

 

[RCrayons]

I don't get why clauses exist.
"Oh sleeping all your opponents pokemon is cheap, lets ban it."
So you need to protect against sleep like you do in the real, non-claused game.
"OHKO moves are cheap because they can kill in one shot."
So? They have a 30% accuracy.
"Double Team is cheap because it makes it hard to hit"
So taunt it.

Honestly. Its pokemon, not "lets play nicely and I can say I win."
I say we don't have a sleep clause.

 

[cim]

Why are we banning _anything_ in 2v2 without testing? This only leads to annoying tests later after a metagame is established. While there may be advantage in making it "like OU" for popularity purposes, that's what the VGS metagame is for. We should make a proper metagame rather than go with no-test bans of the "traditionally Uber" Pokémon, IMO.

Smeargle is honestly more broken than half of that list anyway. Obi once said Smeargle and Kyogre were equally good in 2v2. There is no evidence that any of these Pokémon are broken, since there is no evidence for anything at all.

It shouldn't happen in my opinion. We should play until problems arise, not try and anticipate them. Uncharted territory and all that.

 

[-Zer0-]

Why are we banning _anything_ in 2v2 without testing?

Exactly.

 

[Joatmon]

I don't get why clauses exist.
"Oh sleeping all your opponents pokemon is cheap, lets ban it."
So you need to protect against sleep like you do in the real, non-claused game. [snip]
Honestly. Its pokemon, not "lets play nicely and I can say I win."
I say we don't have a sleep clause.

Yea my protection against sleep in non-claused in-game is 99 Full Restores, I do not see how you protect against sleep otherwise, unless you run something completely stupid like ResTalk Heal Bell or something.

 

[Hipmonlee]

One thing I would like to see is some details about exactly what pokemon do that requires them to be banned.

I mean, Kyogre and Groudon are obvious, and probably some of the others as well, but you know if you could give a brief explanation of what makes each one banworthy..

Have a nice day.

 

[DJ Forte]

One thing I would like to see is some details about exactly what pokemon do that requires them to be banned.

I mean, Kyogre and Groudon are obvious, and probably some of the others as well, but you know if you could give a brief explanation of what makes each one banworthy..

Have a nice day.

Thats why we have tiers and ladders. I agree Kyogre and Groudon are really powerful in this game, but we need to do some tests before we ban anything.

 

[StarmanXL]

Whoa, Tangerine, calm down man.

I personally would rather go the whole "throw everything in and let the metagame sort out" route, but the truth is that even if this would give a more accurate measure of what is broken or not, there aren't enough people familiar with the game to begin with to make any sort of accurate call--not to mention that, even with those with adequate experience, we have no criteria needed for banning like I adressed in the Doubles Metagame thread awhile back--if two pokemon prove to be overpowering, which do you ban? If a pokemon is overpowering when paired with another pokemon, is that pokemon breaking the offensive characteristic or is the other pokemon breaking the support characteristic (Follow Me everything comes to mind)? Not to mention we have no idea what "common battle conditions" are--that phrase that consistently pops up whenever we consider the tiering of any pokemon. The truth is, if we threw it all together, it'd be as much of a clusterfuck as if we start with a pre-set and probably flawed and arbitrary ban-list. I figure all we can really do at the moment is set some pokes to be banned, have people play the ladder, and hopefully we'll gain enough experience to make more accurate calls on what should be tested or not instead of pulling things out of our asses. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't, really.

Anyway, onto the topic of Sleep Clause, I strongly oppose increasing the number of pokemon permissibly asleep. For those suggesting that Sleep Clause should allow more pokemon to be put asleep or that it should be eliminated outright for doubles, I have to ask you why you think Sleep Clause is put into place to begin with. In a single battle, a sleeping pokemon is a huge liability to begin with--basically dead weight for your team, and annoying enough to deal with should you lack a Cleric anyway. More than one and things are getting harder, and half of your team asleep, as fortegoddx suggested, would pretty much mean you're screwed given that it allows so much set up and the enemy can eliminate your checks and counters with ease.

Now, let's put this into a 2v2 context. The metagame is faster paced, stall is less viable, you may not be able to switch around and counter with ease. Every pokemon counts. Now a third or a half of your team is incapacitated and rendered useless by sleep. Whoopee, the enemy will walk right over you should you lack a Cleric or you didn't load your team with Lum Berries to the exclusion of anything else in order to stand a fighting chance (most people would consider the latter "overcentralizing"). I don't know what people were saying sleep wasn't a big deal in doubles; I've found it to be even more critical there, and if we just nix sleep clause it's just going to become a huge Scarf Dark Void/Spore Smeargle + Follow Me user vs. Lum and Chesto Berry everything nightmare.

Personally, I would just go with the auto-lose option, as it seems the fairest. So what if we can't use Dark Void? The two users of it get other sleep moves anyway--one gets one that's 100% accurate, while the other gets kinda boned, but he's Uber and when have we ever really cared about balancing Ubers?

Okay, well, moving on, about the proposed banlist, all I've got to say is maybe allow Ho-oh seeing as it has generated some discussion, but since the metagame generally lacks SR I dunno about it. Wobbuffet, likewise, I don't know--depends on how much of a hassle Shadow Tag turns out to be. Mew, I can see being OU--if it was banned, I would predict it would be a set intended for Psych Up teams but I do not know.

 

[scampy]

Although we are catering towards 6 member Pokemon teams instead of the 4 used in VGS, we can already learn a great deal about what play without sleep clause is like. Look at the VGS teams; they are all horribly centralised around the sleep condition. Not one lead combo goes without a protection against dark void. Do you guys really want to waste time testing this, when it's clear how bad it's going to turn out? I sure know I don't.

Somebody just said that Smeargle could be compared to Kyogre in terms of power. And yeah, I agree. But that's in a metagame where there is NO sleep clause. It really goes to show just how devastating sleep can be.

 

[cim]

Oh please.

Stop twisting stuff around by adding crap like "proper" and by saying that "you can't ban without testing". Philosophy of Tiering can seriously burn.

Really? You can't ban without testing? You want me to tell you how much measurement error there is in this game, how much variability is in this game? Pokemon is a nightmare to measure, in fact, I will say that it is probably near impossible to properly measure based on the statistics we have or the opinions that people have. You act like testing makes things certain and it makes it proper - open your eyes - we're running polls to decide. Testing is just as vague as anything else.

When did I ever say anything about measuring by statistics? I've given that dream up along with everyone else months ago, and putting words into my mouth like that just detracts from the debate at hand.

Testing does not make things certain. What testing does give us is experience. When we're making a ban of a Pokémon in a metagame that is going to be so drastically different than anything we have ever played before based mostly on a different mode of play's ban list, with no actual experience, then we're in a bad position. At least with a no bans metagame, we can make arguments based on actual battles. Here, we don't even have that.

Stop trying to impose some stupid tier system that you think should be kept because "this is how it is philosophically done". In fact, burn it. It is simply not practical and in the end, nearly pointless and still not "certain" and it has lead to the longest and the most stressful process for Smogon.

The UU test isn't that stressful. I'm confused by what you mean here. Are you oppsed to any testing of something potentially being too broken to play in a metagame?

The best we were able to do was set up a pretty damn good system for testing suspects, but frankly, no matter what you do, testing is still not infallible. We measure it on literally on people's preference on "do you think this is too strong based on X characteristic". Good luck doing that for 2 vs 2 when the game relies even less on those characteristics. Good luck trying to measure combinations of pokemon and trying to quantify them. Oh wait. You're taking a poll. So why is this better? You're taking a poll from people who probably don't have full grasp of how to play the game. in fact, we see this in the various styles and opinions people have.

These are all good points and all, but how does saying "this handful of pokemon are banned" at all address this? Saying "oh, it's too hard to do that, so let's just call these guys the broken ones" just ends up with a different metagame. Why ban anything _ever_ then? Why even have an Uber list?

The Smogon community has identified that it is apporpriate to ban Pokémon. By having _some_ sort of play experience, we'll be able to decide which Pokémon harm the metagame enough to ban. Testing is diffcult and strenuous. The alternative, that you want to go with, to avoid the big, horrible mess, is to decide that the Pokémon we want to banned are... these. We reach our hand into a bag and pull out some sprites. And they're banned. It's completely arbitrary and without reason.

the tldr version is that I don't understand your point in having any bans, if you don't want to test anything. They seem unrelated?

 

[DJ Forte]

Baning something unless it has been proven not to be killed seems very unfair. To me the Uber tier is all about using poke with lost of power in the battle. If your going to battle in Uber then you should know what your getting into, and if you don't then don't complain. For example if one of the 2 weather legends are out you should be prepared with your own weather changing poke or Rayquaza who stops all effects of weather. Chances are all 3 are going to be uber so why ban something just because the game creators made it with a purpose.

Edit: to hhjj, we can't do that in the games. So whats the point of changing something on a simulator if you can't change it when it matters in real life battles?

 

[cim]

hhjj, That's modifying a game mechanic, so at the very least it will be controversial. Personally, I think we should never modify game mechanics, as do many others.

 

[rory]

The subject of sleep clause is essentially over. There are only two valid options. The first is to implement an auto-loss sleep clause that only allows you to put one of your opponents Pokemon to sleep. The other is to remove sleep clause completely. We are going with the first unless someone comes up with some reason that convinces everyone that it should be the second.

As far as the banlist goes, unless there is any opposition I am allowing a two week period on the ladder with nothing banned. After that period we will decide which Pokemon will be on the banlist.

 

[Tangerine]

When did I ever say anything about measuring by statistics? I've given that dream up along with everyone else months ago, and putting words into my mouth like that just detracts from the debate at hand.

Testing does not make things certain. What testing does give us is experience. When we're making a ban of a Pokémon in a metagame that is going to be so drastically different than anything we have ever played before based mostly on a different mode of play's ban list, with no actual experience, then we're in a bad position. At least with a no bans metagame, we can make arguments based on actual battles. Here, we don't even have that.



The UU test isn't that stressful. I'm confused by what you mean here. Are you oppsed to any testing of something potentially being too broken to play in a metagame?



These are all good points and all, but how does saying "this handful of pokemon are banned" at all address this? Saying "oh, it's too hard to do that, so let's just call these guys the broken ones" just ends up with a different metagame. Why ban anything _ever_ then? Why even have an Uber list?

The Smogon community has identified that it is apporpriate to ban Pokémon. By having _some_ sort of play experience, we'll be able to decide which Pokémon harm the metagame enough to ban. Testing is diffcult and strenuous. The alternative, that you want to go with, to avoid the big, horrible mess, is to decide that the Pokémon we want to banned are... these. We reach our hand into a bag and pull out some sprites. And they're banned. It's completely arbitrary and without reason.

the tldr version is that I don't understand your point in having any bans, if you don't want to test anything. They seem unrelated?

whoosh! over your head.

Experience is irrelevant unless we have a specific goal we're aiming for. This specific goal comes from theories about how you think the metagame is formed. Secondly, you are always biased for whatever you experienced first.

Why are we in a bad position? You seem to be repeating your rhetoric that "only this is good". That's nonsense.

Here's a theory for you. The metagame centralizes around what is the strongest. I'll give you a bit of a challenge and see if you can figure out why this + being biased for initial experience leads to a metagame with fewer Pokemon. Oh, sounds like starting with bans is a better idea :)

"Why even have an ubers list". Good joke, sounds like you're missing the point :)

I don't think I ever promoted a solid, static, banlist. Bans should be flexible and never certain.