I am making this thread to draw some attention to what we seem to have been doing during the Gen 5 metagame construction, and either avert the problems that may come up or accept them and decide on a solution to them before it is forced on us. If your only concern is as a player to have a non-broken metagame and you care nothing for the way metagames are constructed, or the kinds of rulsets we use, I ask you to think carefully before posting. This is probably not something which interests you. Players with an interest in the way the metagame is constructed are of course welcome, just be aware this is not similar to a suspect discussion.
First, the facts.
In no previous generation has a ban on a specific non-Pokémon and non-move (DT, OHKOs) element been widely used (there were several complex bans in the GSC era, Perish Trapping and HP Legends, but at that time as far as I am aware there was no central policy group and since the lower tiers were almost unplayed/decided without stats, the main issues did not apply so strongly.). In Gen 5 we already have one, Inconsistent, and may have another to reduce the power of rain in the OU metagame (Swift Swim and Drizzle have both been considered, as well as simpler (Pokémon) and more complex (combination) bans). I will not be addressing the more complex bans in this topic since there is already one by Aldaron which is being used for that discussion.
The first big question is this: If we ban an ability, is it banned across the ruleset, or simply in that tier?
The answer may seem obvious to some of you, of course we should only ban it in the tier which it is a problem, "It would be absurd to ban Kyogre from Ubers because DrizzleToed is a broken in OU", "Why would we ban Swift Swim from UU where there is no perma rain". However, consider: The tier system is an approximation of power, based on usage since it is the most accurate metric we have available. Pokémon which are weak enough will fall to a lower tier, those powerful will rise. The system is largely self-balancing, and the problematic Pokémon (though which function much better in a lower tier due to complex metagame affects, or those which would be easily powerful enough to work in a higher tier but are outclassed so rarely used) are removed by the suspect system. By limiting the power of Pokémon in a tier, by removing their ability to function as they should, we will cause Pokémon which in their full form are entirely capable of functioning in a higher tier (in this case OU) to fall to a tier which by the standard tiering system they should not be in. You may say that's ok, we can just ban them from the lower tier if they are broken! And, yes, this is an option. However, it is not required and could lead to some quite counter-intuitive results, especially for a player new to competitive Pokémon. For example, we could ban Drizzle from OU and Politoed falls to UU (or NU/some lower metagame) where Drizzle is found not to be broken because of the lack of extremely powerful rain abusers (the specific example does not matter, the possibility of building the foundation rules of constructing a metagame which allows for this is the problem). Something is banned in a high tier, but not in a low tier. This is possible, but seems profoundly wrong to me. We do not need to make special exceptions for abilities. All the Pokémon which are broken (even a Pokémon broken entirely due to it's ability is broken. A restricted form of it may not be broken, but that is true of every single Pokémon.) can be dealt with using simple bans. A possible exception to this is Inconsistent, and I'll take a shot at explaining why it should be an exception, and why we cannot use it as precedent for other non-Pokémon bans in a vast majority of cases.
Inconsistent, like the other non-Pokémon game elements banned (OHKO and Evasion), was removed partially due to the luck element. It was argued that it made the game (or at least specific games, over time luck evens out thanks to the law of large numbers) less skill based. It would have been possible to simply ban each Pokémon which rendered the game less skill based because of Inconsistent, however a similar reasoning can be applied as the one used to decide to ban Evasion, rather than banning everything which makes the game more luck based when evasion moves are allowed. Firstly, it is much easier from a testing perspective to give a blanket ban on a move or ability than test everything with DT along with the 14 with Minimize, or the 7 Pokémon which have Inconsistent. When presented with a large array of broken Pokémon which share a common factor, be it move or ability, the common reaction is to remove that factor. If there is a choice between banning a large number of Pokémon, introducing a non-Pokémon ban, or reducing the desirability of a metagame, it may be better to ban that element. This is arguable, and I would personally dispute it, but the second reason is much more convincing. If a non-Pokémon element will be harmful across all tiers and on all (or almost all) Pokémon which it is available to, then since it needs to be removed from the game as a whole, we can use a global ban. One which removes it from every tier, and circumvents the issues that arise from the interaction between tier specific non-Pokémon bans and the usage based tiering system.
In short, I propose that non-Pokémon bans should be considered only if the game element is globally harmful, and that the standard tiering system should be used for all other cases to produce a more often than not better metagame (because simplicity>complexity, and the characteristics of a desirable metagame can be fulfilled without need for more complexity. Other judgments are almost purely subjective.). The reasoning for this cannot be so easily condensed, so if you skipped to this bit go back and read before posting please.
Thank you for your time, and I'd like to hear your considered thoughts.
First, the facts.
In no previous generation has a ban on a specific non-Pokémon and non-move (DT, OHKOs) element been widely used (there were several complex bans in the GSC era, Perish Trapping and HP Legends, but at that time as far as I am aware there was no central policy group and since the lower tiers were almost unplayed/decided without stats, the main issues did not apply so strongly.). In Gen 5 we already have one, Inconsistent, and may have another to reduce the power of rain in the OU metagame (Swift Swim and Drizzle have both been considered, as well as simpler (Pokémon) and more complex (combination) bans). I will not be addressing the more complex bans in this topic since there is already one by Aldaron which is being used for that discussion.
The first big question is this: If we ban an ability, is it banned across the ruleset, or simply in that tier?
The answer may seem obvious to some of you, of course we should only ban it in the tier which it is a problem, "It would be absurd to ban Kyogre from Ubers because DrizzleToed is a broken in OU", "Why would we ban Swift Swim from UU where there is no perma rain". However, consider: The tier system is an approximation of power, based on usage since it is the most accurate metric we have available. Pokémon which are weak enough will fall to a lower tier, those powerful will rise. The system is largely self-balancing, and the problematic Pokémon (though which function much better in a lower tier due to complex metagame affects, or those which would be easily powerful enough to work in a higher tier but are outclassed so rarely used) are removed by the suspect system. By limiting the power of Pokémon in a tier, by removing their ability to function as they should, we will cause Pokémon which in their full form are entirely capable of functioning in a higher tier (in this case OU) to fall to a tier which by the standard tiering system they should not be in. You may say that's ok, we can just ban them from the lower tier if they are broken! And, yes, this is an option. However, it is not required and could lead to some quite counter-intuitive results, especially for a player new to competitive Pokémon. For example, we could ban Drizzle from OU and Politoed falls to UU (or NU/some lower metagame) where Drizzle is found not to be broken because of the lack of extremely powerful rain abusers (the specific example does not matter, the possibility of building the foundation rules of constructing a metagame which allows for this is the problem). Something is banned in a high tier, but not in a low tier. This is possible, but seems profoundly wrong to me. We do not need to make special exceptions for abilities. All the Pokémon which are broken (even a Pokémon broken entirely due to it's ability is broken. A restricted form of it may not be broken, but that is true of every single Pokémon.) can be dealt with using simple bans. A possible exception to this is Inconsistent, and I'll take a shot at explaining why it should be an exception, and why we cannot use it as precedent for other non-Pokémon bans in a vast majority of cases.
Inconsistent, like the other non-Pokémon game elements banned (OHKO and Evasion), was removed partially due to the luck element. It was argued that it made the game (or at least specific games, over time luck evens out thanks to the law of large numbers) less skill based. It would have been possible to simply ban each Pokémon which rendered the game less skill based because of Inconsistent, however a similar reasoning can be applied as the one used to decide to ban Evasion, rather than banning everything which makes the game more luck based when evasion moves are allowed. Firstly, it is much easier from a testing perspective to give a blanket ban on a move or ability than test everything with DT along with the 14 with Minimize, or the 7 Pokémon which have Inconsistent. When presented with a large array of broken Pokémon which share a common factor, be it move or ability, the common reaction is to remove that factor. If there is a choice between banning a large number of Pokémon, introducing a non-Pokémon ban, or reducing the desirability of a metagame, it may be better to ban that element. This is arguable, and I would personally dispute it, but the second reason is much more convincing. If a non-Pokémon element will be harmful across all tiers and on all (or almost all) Pokémon which it is available to, then since it needs to be removed from the game as a whole, we can use a global ban. One which removes it from every tier, and circumvents the issues that arise from the interaction between tier specific non-Pokémon bans and the usage based tiering system.
In short, I propose that non-Pokémon bans should be considered only if the game element is globally harmful, and that the standard tiering system should be used for all other cases to produce a more often than not better metagame (because simplicity>complexity, and the characteristics of a desirable metagame can be fulfilled without need for more complexity. Other judgments are almost purely subjective.). The reasoning for this cannot be so easily condensed, so if you skipped to this bit go back and read before posting please.
Thank you for your time, and I'd like to hear your considered thoughts.
