@superzman300 "after already Dynamaxing). I, personally, would be happiest if Gamefreak decided to further explore Mega Evolutions and Z-Moves- both mechanics offer a nice mixture of diversity while (generally) not being too "overpowered" or "overcentralizing". The Dynamax mechanic itself is reminiscent of (some) Final Smashes: a flashy "reversal", "power move", etc."
I don't disagree.
"However, assuming an accusatory stance ("...you are taking...", "You're being...") towards other members doesn't exactly achieve anything, either. Such behavior has no place if you're trying to dissect others' arguments. It certainly doesn't help establish your credibility as a new member when one of your first posts- if not the first post- you made at 4:03 PM (5 minutes after creating your account at 3:58 PM today, according to your Profile page) describes your feelings towards anti-Smogon whiners. Ranting is pretty comparable to whining, and is equally unpleasant to read throu"
Countering or rebuttaling a post is not ranting. Is your post a rant by how long it is? Of course not. Merely pointing out basis on how things work is not a rant, no more than a scientist explaining any element of a science to the lesser informed. I don't mind if people don't like smogon or it's decisions. I do not like people making assumptions of Smogon judges or players as a whole. That's not merely "whining" that's slanderous at best, and presumptious .
"Like others, you don't see harm behind thinking that "Smogon's rules affect Smogon players". However, it's crucial that you consider exactly how Smogon's decisions diffuse throughout more competitive communities than Smogon alone. There are virtually only two "flavors" of competitive Pokemon rulesets recognized by the vast majority of competitive Pokemon communities: Smogon's and VGC's."
No one is stopping people who dislike Smogons rule set from creating their own. If their rule set is so well liked I'm sure many will join their base as well, correct? Or maybe their rule set won't garner interest, but I find it odd those who hate Smogon never propose their own set ups. Free play is even a thing on Smogon.
" If the former's ruleset is acknowledged as a "standard" in this sense, its decisiouns should have a very solid and comprehensive reasoning behind every single one of their roles. If this can't be the case, and if other high-level or highly-functional players can identify "gaps" in Smogon's reasoning, then there is reason to challenge the rationale behind Smogon's decision-making processes. "
No one said they can't challenge the decision, even I do not agree with every Smogon decision, but there is a difference between saying I think they are wrong on a decision (see SR) and literally claiming they are banning it because they suck or don't test the game. That's fallacious and unreasonable an assertion.
"With this in mind, there is perfectly valid concern when Smogon adds new clauses that impact "standards" other competitive communities observe when a decision is already made about a core game mechanic (a first even for Smogon) under three weeks of the game's launch (NOTE: discoveries made by datamining doesn't count as an "early launch", either- those only give rise to "theorycrafting" without proper in-battle applications). Moreover, Smogon itself hasn't necessarily rescinded or adapted decisions they previously made in favor of obsolete mechanics or new strategies, which is supported by the refusal to implement "complex bans". Objectively, it's impossible for a community to defend its decisions as "absolute" or "airtight" if there is a lack of willingness to explore every single possible scenario, regardless of how much effort this requires. As a few examples:"
Again, if someone wants to start their own rule list they are perfectly capable of doing so, but only if people find their changes to be beneficial. If not, then maybe it is their assertions that are the problem and not Smogons. That doesn't make Smogon perfect, but it sounds pretty elitist to suggest they know better than a group that isn't one single entity and is voted on with its decisions, good or bad. (subjectively.)
Just saying they aren't willing to explore options is very stubborn a position. How long must they test? A month, a year, ten years? Anyone can push or make the stipulation how long they should test, but they don't agree, and that's their decision. If someone has such a problem
"-What if that Dynamaxed Gyarados was only at a Level 0 Dynamax Level with only 1.5x HP boost and NOT the full 2x boost when reaching Dynamax Level 10? I believe those on Smogon already voiced concern against candies so the game can remain "more accessible" (i.e., everything is considerably less bulky)- this applies just the same to Dynamax Candies and the overwhelming overall "bulk increase" they provide."
The bulk is not the only issue with Dynamax. If it were they wouldn't be that big of an issue. Gyarados no longer has access to Megas, and although bulky isn't the end all be all anymore. DD is a threat, but there are answers for non dynamax Gyarados.
"-What happens when Pokemon HOME features are rolled out and what if they allow for moves such as Toxic to become legal again? As far as the +1 (or +6, even) Dynamax Gyarados scenario, remember that Clefable with Unaware ("Unaware Wall") becomes legal again (which has a pure Fairy typing rather than Water/Ground typing like Quagsire, learns Toxic/ Thunder Wave, has reliable recovery in Soft-Boiled, and can even learn Counter as a response to Physical Max Moves)."
Should every team have to run Clefable to counter Gyarados or any other specific Dynamax threat? Is that not the concept of over centralization?
"These are two of numerous new possibilities that offer the prospect to level the Dynamax mechanic out in some capacity, or to allow otherwise-capable Pokemon to access tools they could use to circumvent what might otherwise be "Dynamax sweeps". Not noted also include the usage of simple status conditions or "gimmicks" like Sashed Malamar's Topsy-Turvy (which can also utilize Psychic Terrain and boost with Superpower). The Smogon Community's stigma towards "gimmicks" should have nothing to do with a strategy that achieves a specific, desirable purpose. In fact, it can be argued the existence of disposable "Hazard Setters" or "Hazard Removers" that offer most of their utility when using only one or two moves for the entire match is an extension of a "gimmick that works"."
Gimmicks are bad for two major reasons. 1. If the gimmick counter or setter or what have you dies. The gimmick loses. See Baton Pass. If the stat passer or receiving Pokemon dies, the team falls apart quickly.
2. Gimmicks often fail to account for standard threats and rely on one major threat to stop or take out. Which defeats the purpose of a stable or consistent competitive team.
This is why they are looked down upon. This doesn't mean you can't win or use gimmicks, but if your answer to a threat is one gimmick pushed on all teams then there is an issue with that suggestion.
You could stop many Choice Band/Scarf/Spec ubers with curse/disable/etc. If your only option to stop them is that very specific gimmick then if that user dies, you've now enabled that strat to not only dominate the meta but destroy it single handedly. Which is why such things are taken very seriously.
Imagine playing a fighting game, and the only answer to countering a high tier character is "use a random move no one would ever use or expect on this one specific character." It would be a laughing stock.
"Repeating the same points already discussed in length on Smogon's community forums is valid, but not to the point of only considering said points and nothing else. The generation as a whole is quite literally at its infancy, yet it's saddens me that there are those who project their laddering experience in a still-limited, pre-HOME environment inaccurately as a "comprehensive" process spanning a "few months" of real-world passage- this is also fallacious, and I would encourage everyone to withhold judgment until there is truly more information available. I put this post out there with hopes that you- and others with similar impulses to "police" other members here on a Nintendo-centric news site not specifically dedicated to any single "series" or "gaming demographic"- to consider these points more carefully."
I do consider them, and I consider it pretty silly to claim those against it are just knee jerk reacting or fear mongering or jumping the gun. If you believe in your cause so righteously nothing stops you from running your own meta, but if no one joins your meta long term, it may be your beliefs are the ones not at odds with reality or in favorability and not Smogons.
Don't take it as an insult merely a perception/perspective view on the situation.
Smogon existed because some wanted a more competitive experience outside of VGC or Nintendo tournaments, so people like minded came together to create a meta, what stops those complaining about Smogon?
My belief is they are either over reacting or wanting someone else to create their utopian fantasy of a meta, or lazy. Nothing is stopping them yet they'd rather throw shade at people in their own community, attack others for how they play (IE: Elitism) or just not attempt their beliefs on what and how it should be run. When they put up and or shut up, so will people like myself.
That's not ranting, that's answering a claim by rebuttaling it. Simply put. If someone doesn't want to partake in Smogon, no big deal. If someone doesn't like their meta, that's fine. I don't like some aspects myself. If someone thinks they can do better, then please show us your attempts, otherwise it's wind blowing out of a hallow tunnel called their mouth.
Edit : One more thing, what or when I created my account is irrelevant. that's an attempt at ad hominem to my arguments. Either my arguments have merit or they don't. Attempting to discredit me on such a concept is very narrow minded. Not saying you are doing this, but saying those who would attempt to do so should be careful. I'm not new to game forums or online forums, unless I just learned to play smogon in the last few seconds, the arguments should be directed at the merit of said points, and not a personal attack. Again, not saying you are saying this, just if it is intended this way it's very bad way to present a counter argument.
@HeroponRiki The problem with banning those two, is that it doesn't benefit anything to ban Gyarados. all it will do is lead to the next Dynamax 3TKO Pokemon. TTar, Dragons, Legandaries (who aren't Ubers) and then more.
"Back when Mega Evolutions were introduced, stuff like Mega Rayquaza and to a lesser extent Mega Kangaskhan were patently absurd, but they banned those pokemon, not the game mechanic itself. Dynamax has the same effect for all pokemon aside from a few gigantamax forms if I'm not mistaken- your example is actually kind of proving my point. Magikarp doesn't suddenly become good because it can dynamax; it doesn't upset the balance when it's something every pokemon can do. In edge cases like a broken Gigantamax form, you can ban that specific Gigantamax form."
That's a false equivalency though. Most megas were not amazingly beyond powerful. Rayquaza was already banned before Megas came into the fray, and Kangas was the exception. Most Pokemon when dynamaxing gain 100+ BP for three turns with additional +1 buffs, and extra effects. (Sunny day, rainy Day, Sandstorm, etc.) at no expense, they can even run an additional item.
If Megas had let you run say any Pokemon with an additional Life Orb, or Choice Band, or Choice Scarf, they would have been banned. Period. That was the trade off though, not letting them have an item. Which means 1TKO's made megas vulnerable. The reason why Kangas was banned because it would only be used in OU due to megas and its megas hit through subs and other options. It was broken. Plainly put.
"Dynamax being powerful isn't a reason to ban it when it's a central mechanic."
It's beyond powerful. It's a lliteral weather setter, +1 boost (up to +3 or a nerf to enemies depending or some other effect) 100+ Bo move with no chance of missing. Anything that has decent ATK/SPATK will kill you using Dynamax and tank hits due to the HP increase. Just because it's a central mechanic doesn't make it balanced. Especially when it makes most matches play out the same way. Because most smart players will either clean house late game with it (TTar/Dragons/Gyarados/etc.) or sweep from the start to wipe out any potential counters or Pokemon that may survive the Dynamax, and the fact they get an additional item means they have extra benefits.
"t's different sure, previous pokemon games didn't require you to always have a plan ready if you suddenly need to stall for three turns, but it's not inherently bad."
The problem is we lost a lot of walls, and forcing every team to run the same two walls to counter Dynamax makes it over centralizing and busted in team making. Imagine if every team had to run Blissey because of SPATK dominance in some meta game. It doesn't but imagine if it did, would it be a good meta to force everyone to run the same thing? No.
"minimize the damage your opponent gets by using substitute/protect or switching into resistances or tanks is also part of the core game mechanics. It's different sure, previous pokemon games didn't require you to always have a plan ready if you suddenly need to stall for three turns, but it's not inherently bad."
And if they wait until late game to use it which they can until your protect oriented team members are dead, what then? Substitute users, and others? that's a cheesy sweep with little counter play.
"Finally, as for Dugtrio being "OP" and not having counter-play... that's just flat out wrong. Items like Air Balloon or Shed Shell can be used for pokemon like Heatran that are especially vulnerable, you can use moves like baton pass (you know, if they hadn't banned that too) and U-turn, avoid using pokemon with low defense and speed that are weak to ground, or just accept the revenge kill and then gain initiative on your opponent the next turn when they have to switch out Dugtrio because it's weak as hell at everything except it's specific role. If, instead of banning all trapping abilities, they allowed them and let the meta evolve around them we could have had a very different and more interesting meta. It's very similar to Stealth Rock in Gen 4 where yes it's powerful but instead of banning it they let the meta evolve around setting up and dealing with entry hazards, and pokemon that were weak to stealth rock were just considered pokemon that couldn't keep up in the meta and ended up in lower tiers."
Let's start with what I actually said, little counter play. Some counter play doesn't change that. Shedshell is also an option but should a Pokemon give up its item for ONE threat? No. This would be like saying Mega Kangas can be countered by throwing up Toxistall options or Toxipex sets, or even F.E.A.R. rattata. Just because it can counter doesn't make it a good viable option.
By the by Mewtwo loses to Fear, should Mewtwo be in OU? It loses to Sucker Punch mawhile (without Mega), it loses to Pursuit, Switch in Shadow Ball, and has a hard time swapping in due to fragility. those are counters. should Mewtwo not be banned?
The point on dugtrio when it ran rampant, I remember it, it was starting to rise in huge usage, similar to the issue with Ditto and Gyarados on Dynamax. Without Dynamax those Pokemon are decently used, OU capable, but not to the point where almost 100% of teams require them or counters to them or flat out lose. (Gimmicks are not a sound option, nor are one time counters because if it dies you lose.)
That's how things are banned. Not because there are 80 simple work arounds to effect a monster, and heck even with work arounds (Mewtwo as explained) it's still broken due to testing it.
In regards to SR, I've always felt SR was one of the more questionable over centralizing elements but as Rapid Spin became more abundant and for a period of time gained advantages (such as the recent speed boost chance) I can slightly understand it staying it, although it hinders many types of Pokemon.
Dynamax doesn't just hinder many types of Pokemon it creates a threat from any specific Pokemon whether you have a viable counter or not. Thank goddness Garchomp didn't survive the cut or it'd be near impossible not to run a team dedicated solely to it.
"Dynamaxing doesn't hurt or overcentralize the game."
Yes it does.. ditto used to revenge kill or revenge set-up on Dynamax Pokemon was overly used due to that primary purpose. They tested Dynamax on ladders for weeks as I recall if not months, and the meta became Dynamax Gyarados/choice Pokemon here, Ditto, with little variety past that.
Just because everything can Dynmax does not make them equal. That's like saying "Magikarp can Dynamax so it's equally as viable as Gyarados." No. Just no. Certain Pokemon were ridiculously powerful in that situation in comparison to others, which is why the ban was voted on.
Just because it lasts a limited amount of time, doesn't change it gives free KO oppertunities to upwards of at least 3 Pokemon. Especially with the likes of Gyarados. Let alone over 100 BP moves for 3 turns with no accuracy reduction, and usually added stat boosts. (water moves = Rainy Day set up making rain teams insane)
In regards to Dugtrio, are you referencing the Sand Arena Vs. Dugtrio vote. Which came down to the issue being Dugtrio and not sand arena which on many Pokemon did not create as many locks or lack of counter plays in the ladders?
Saying it was banned only due to a playstyle of locking down teams to set up easy kills and cheese most teams that didn't specifically have counters on hand for it is again dishonest.
Now whether I agree with all their bans, fair enough, I don't. That doesn't make them illogical or bad or rubbish or pretending it was done because they don't like it's playstyle.
This is the problem many of us have with those misrepresenting Smogon bans, try to not be dishonest about your claims for the bans. Saying something like dynamax didn't over centralize is at best lying.
@Dog The point is to limit luck factors. In real life sports there are still luck factors but they still prohibit additional luck factors. Going "Well luck exists so why even try" is a defeatist and nonsensical position, and makes little sense.
Luck moves are not fully luck based like you believe. Most moves with a % chance, are based on simple math. Critical hits are one thing ( even then some moves and Pokemon can increase the chance of crits hitting or make them formulaic: Absol)
It's not that smogon isn't logical, it's that you are taking a conclusion to the extremes which is fallacious at best.
This would be your idea in a nut shell : "Luck exists so I guess skill in any endeavor in life is meaningless, no one can truly be skilled because of that luck!" Except that's not how it works at all.
@Bobb No. The only Megas as someone else mentioned that were banned were mainly Ubers or ones that were so powerful they couldn't easily be stopped in singles.
Mega rayquaza for instance, because if they had legalized it, it would have been on every team imaginable. (Mega Mewtwos another obvious ban)
Most megas weren't banned due to the fact using a Mega costed an item on said Pokemon which could have been used for a set up boost/focus sash/etc. Most teams had one which slightly over centralized but they were not a free KO card in most instances. Unlike Dynamax Gyarados.
In regards to your second question: Not everybody was forced, but it was a decent option due to stat boosts. Usually a good wall breaker or set up on a team. (Mega Charizard for instance for sun teams)
However again, Megas were far more vulnerable because of a lack of items so if you ended up in a bad match up you were done with whatever Mega you had.
even Mega Mewtwo in Ubers faces a risk due to things like Mega Mawhile Sucker punch.
@Shepdawg1 The problem with your argument is it over centralizes the battles (Megas at least traded off an item to gain stats/damage) and this was tested on their servers. That's how they realized it was ban worthy in their meta.
The people always saying "Smogon is elitist." Sound like they are projecting. Smogons rules only apply to Smogon and yet people always whine when they don't even play Smogon.
Sounds like they're upset that Smogon doesn't play by their elitist wants and desires instead of Smogon just creating its own meta which is perfectly fine.
It always sounds like "Wah, Smogon won't do what I want them to do." Despite last I recall Smogon had a VGC playstyle, and other metas as well despite their competitive set ups.
Comments 7
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@superzman300 "after already Dynamaxing). I, personally, would be happiest if Gamefreak decided to further explore Mega Evolutions and Z-Moves- both mechanics offer a nice mixture of diversity while (generally) not being too "overpowered" or "overcentralizing". The Dynamax mechanic itself is reminiscent of (some) Final Smashes: a flashy "reversal", "power move", etc."
I don't disagree.
"However, assuming an accusatory stance ("...you are taking...", "You're being...") towards other members doesn't exactly achieve anything, either. Such behavior has no place if you're trying to dissect others' arguments. It certainly doesn't help establish your credibility as a new member when one of your first posts- if not the first post- you made at 4:03 PM (5 minutes after creating your account at 3:58 PM today, according to your Profile page) describes your feelings towards anti-Smogon whiners. Ranting is pretty comparable to whining, and is equally unpleasant to read throu"
Countering or rebuttaling a post is not ranting. Is your post a rant by how long it is? Of course not. Merely pointing out basis on how things work is not a rant, no more than a scientist explaining any element of a science to the lesser informed. I don't mind if people don't like smogon or it's decisions. I do not like people making assumptions of Smogon judges or players as a whole. That's not merely "whining" that's slanderous at best, and presumptious .
"Like others, you don't see harm behind thinking that "Smogon's rules affect Smogon players". However, it's crucial that you consider exactly how Smogon's decisions diffuse throughout more competitive communities than Smogon alone. There are virtually only two "flavors" of competitive Pokemon rulesets recognized by the vast majority of competitive Pokemon communities: Smogon's and VGC's."
No one is stopping people who dislike Smogons rule set from creating their own. If their rule set is so well liked I'm sure many will join their base as well, correct? Or maybe their rule set won't garner interest, but I find it odd those who hate Smogon never propose their own set ups. Free play is even a thing on Smogon.
" If the former's ruleset is acknowledged as a "standard" in this sense, its decisiouns should have a very solid and comprehensive reasoning behind every single one of their roles. If this can't be the case, and if other high-level or highly-functional players can identify "gaps" in Smogon's reasoning, then there is reason to challenge the rationale behind Smogon's decision-making processes. "
No one said they can't challenge the decision, even I do not agree with every Smogon decision, but there is a difference between saying I think they are wrong on a decision (see SR) and literally claiming they are banning it because they suck or don't test the game. That's fallacious and unreasonable an assertion.
"With this in mind, there is perfectly valid concern when Smogon adds new clauses that impact "standards" other competitive communities observe when a decision is already made about a core game mechanic (a first even for Smogon) under three weeks of the game's launch (NOTE: discoveries made by datamining doesn't count as an "early launch", either- those only give rise to "theorycrafting" without proper in-battle applications). Moreover, Smogon itself hasn't necessarily rescinded or adapted decisions they previously made in favor of obsolete mechanics or new strategies, which is supported by the refusal to implement "complex bans". Objectively, it's impossible for a community to defend its decisions as "absolute" or "airtight" if there is a lack of willingness to explore every single possible scenario, regardless of how much effort this requires. As a few examples:"
Again, if someone wants to start their own rule list they are perfectly capable of doing so, but only if people find their changes to be beneficial. If not, then maybe it is their assertions that are the problem and not Smogons. That doesn't make Smogon perfect, but it sounds pretty elitist to suggest they know better than a group that isn't one single entity and is voted on with its decisions, good or bad. (subjectively.)
Just saying they aren't willing to explore options is very stubborn a position. How long must they test? A month, a year, ten years? Anyone can push or make the stipulation how long they should test, but they don't agree, and that's their decision. If someone has such a problem
"-What if that Dynamaxed Gyarados was only at a Level 0 Dynamax Level with only 1.5x HP boost and NOT the full 2x boost when reaching Dynamax Level 10? I believe those on Smogon already voiced concern against candies so the game can remain "more accessible" (i.e., everything is considerably less bulky)- this applies just the same to Dynamax Candies and the overwhelming overall "bulk increase" they provide."
The bulk is not the only issue with Dynamax. If it were they wouldn't be that big of an issue. Gyarados no longer has access to Megas, and although bulky isn't the end all be all anymore. DD is a threat, but there are answers for non dynamax Gyarados.
"-What happens when Pokemon HOME features are rolled out and what if they allow for moves such as Toxic to become legal again? As far as the +1 (or +6, even) Dynamax Gyarados scenario, remember that Clefable with Unaware ("Unaware Wall") becomes legal again (which has a pure Fairy typing rather than Water/Ground typing like Quagsire, learns Toxic/ Thunder Wave, has reliable recovery in Soft-Boiled, and can even learn Counter as a response to Physical Max Moves)."
Should every team have to run Clefable to counter Gyarados or any other specific Dynamax threat? Is that not the concept of over centralization?
"These are two of numerous new possibilities that offer the prospect to level the Dynamax mechanic out in some capacity, or to allow otherwise-capable Pokemon to access tools they could use to circumvent what might otherwise be "Dynamax sweeps". Not noted also include the usage of simple status conditions or "gimmicks" like Sashed Malamar's Topsy-Turvy (which can also utilize Psychic Terrain and boost with Superpower). The Smogon Community's stigma towards "gimmicks" should have nothing to do with a strategy that achieves a specific, desirable purpose. In fact, it can be argued the existence of disposable "Hazard Setters" or "Hazard Removers" that offer most of their utility when using only one or two moves for the entire match is an extension of a "gimmick that works"."
Gimmicks are bad for two major reasons. 1. If the gimmick counter or setter or what have you dies. The gimmick loses. See Baton Pass. If the stat passer or receiving Pokemon dies, the team falls apart quickly.
2. Gimmicks often fail to account for standard threats and rely on one major threat to stop or take out. Which defeats the purpose of a stable or consistent competitive team.
This is why they are looked down upon. This doesn't mean you can't win or use gimmicks, but if your answer to a threat is one gimmick pushed on all teams then there is an issue with that suggestion.
You could stop many Choice Band/Scarf/Spec ubers with curse/disable/etc. If your only option to stop them is that very specific gimmick then if that user dies, you've now enabled that strat to not only dominate the meta but destroy it single handedly. Which is why such things are taken very seriously.
Imagine playing a fighting game, and the only answer to countering a high tier character is "use a random move no one would ever use or expect on this one specific character." It would be a laughing stock.
"Repeating the same points already discussed in length on Smogon's community forums is valid, but not to the point of only considering said points and nothing else. The generation as a whole is quite literally at its infancy, yet it's saddens me that there are those who project their laddering experience in a still-limited, pre-HOME environment inaccurately as a "comprehensive" process spanning a "few months" of real-world passage- this is also fallacious, and I would encourage everyone to withhold judgment until there is truly more information available. I put this post out there with hopes that you- and others with similar impulses to "police" other members here on a Nintendo-centric news site not specifically dedicated to any single "series" or "gaming demographic"- to consider these points more carefully."
I do consider them, and I consider it pretty silly to claim those against it are just knee jerk reacting or fear mongering or jumping the gun. If you believe in your cause so righteously nothing stops you from running your own meta, but if no one joins your meta long term, it may be your beliefs are the ones not at odds with reality or in favorability and not Smogons.
Don't take it as an insult merely a perception/perspective view on the situation.
Smogon existed because some wanted a more competitive experience outside of VGC or Nintendo tournaments, so people like minded came together to create a meta, what stops those complaining about Smogon?
My belief is they are either over reacting or wanting someone else to create their utopian fantasy of a meta, or lazy. Nothing is stopping them yet they'd rather throw shade at people in their own community, attack others for how they play (IE: Elitism) or just not attempt their beliefs on what and how it should be run. When they put up and or shut up, so will people like myself.
That's not ranting, that's answering a claim by rebuttaling it. Simply put. If someone doesn't want to partake in Smogon, no big deal. If someone doesn't like their meta, that's fine. I don't like some aspects myself. If someone thinks they can do better, then please show us your attempts, otherwise it's wind blowing out of a hallow tunnel called their mouth.
Edit : One more thing, what or when I created my account is irrelevant. that's an attempt at ad hominem to my arguments. Either my arguments have merit or they don't. Attempting to discredit me on such a concept is very narrow minded. Not saying you are doing this, but saying those who would attempt to do so should be careful. I'm not new to game forums or online forums, unless I just learned to play smogon in the last few seconds, the arguments should be directed at the merit of said points, and not a personal attack. Again, not saying you are saying this, just if it is intended this way it's very bad way to present a counter argument.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@HeroponRiki The problem with banning those two, is that it doesn't benefit anything to ban Gyarados. all it will do is lead to the next Dynamax 3TKO Pokemon. TTar, Dragons, Legandaries (who aren't Ubers) and then more.
"Back when Mega Evolutions were introduced, stuff like Mega Rayquaza and to a lesser extent Mega Kangaskhan were patently absurd, but they banned those pokemon, not the game mechanic itself. Dynamax has the same effect for all pokemon aside from a few gigantamax forms if I'm not mistaken- your example is actually kind of proving my point. Magikarp doesn't suddenly become good because it can dynamax; it doesn't upset the balance when it's something every pokemon can do. In edge cases like a broken Gigantamax form, you can ban that specific Gigantamax form."
That's a false equivalency though. Most megas were not amazingly beyond powerful. Rayquaza was already banned before Megas came into the fray, and Kangas was the exception. Most Pokemon when dynamaxing gain 100+ BP for three turns with additional +1 buffs, and extra effects. (Sunny day, rainy Day, Sandstorm, etc.) at no expense, they can even run an additional item.
If Megas had let you run say any Pokemon with an additional Life Orb, or Choice Band, or Choice Scarf, they would have been banned. Period. That was the trade off though, not letting them have an item. Which means 1TKO's made megas vulnerable. The reason why Kangas was banned because it would only be used in OU due to megas and its megas hit through subs and other options. It was broken. Plainly put.
"Dynamax being powerful isn't a reason to ban it when it's a central mechanic."
It's beyond powerful. It's a lliteral weather setter, +1 boost (up to +3 or a nerf to enemies depending or some other effect) 100+ Bo move with no chance of missing. Anything that has decent ATK/SPATK will kill you using Dynamax and tank hits due to the HP increase. Just because it's a central mechanic doesn't make it balanced. Especially when it makes most matches play out the same way. Because most smart players will either clean house late game with it (TTar/Dragons/Gyarados/etc.) or sweep from the start to wipe out any potential counters or Pokemon that may survive the Dynamax, and the fact they get an additional item means they have extra benefits.
"t's different sure, previous pokemon games didn't require you to always have a plan ready if you suddenly need to stall for three turns, but it's not inherently bad."
The problem is we lost a lot of walls, and forcing every team to run the same two walls to counter Dynamax makes it over centralizing and busted in team making. Imagine if every team had to run Blissey because of SPATK dominance in some meta game. It doesn't but imagine if it did, would it be a good meta to force everyone to run the same thing? No.
"minimize the damage your opponent gets by using substitute/protect or switching into resistances or tanks is also part of the core game mechanics. It's different sure, previous pokemon games didn't require you to always have a plan ready if you suddenly need to stall for three turns, but it's not inherently bad."
And if they wait until late game to use it which they can until your protect oriented team members are dead, what then? Substitute users, and others? that's a cheesy sweep with little counter play.
"Finally, as for Dugtrio being "OP" and not having counter-play... that's just flat out wrong. Items like Air Balloon or Shed Shell can be used for pokemon like Heatran that are especially vulnerable, you can use moves like baton pass (you know, if they hadn't banned that too) and U-turn, avoid using pokemon with low defense and speed that are weak to ground, or just accept the revenge kill and then gain initiative on your opponent the next turn when they have to switch out Dugtrio because it's weak as hell at everything except it's specific role. If, instead of banning all trapping abilities, they allowed them and let the meta evolve around them we could have had a very different and more interesting meta. It's very similar to Stealth Rock in Gen 4 where yes it's powerful but instead of banning it they let the meta evolve around setting up and dealing with entry hazards, and pokemon that were weak to stealth rock were just considered pokemon that couldn't keep up in the meta and ended up in lower tiers."
Let's start with what I actually said, little counter play. Some counter play doesn't change that. Shedshell is also an option but should a Pokemon give up its item for ONE threat? No. This would be like saying Mega Kangas can be countered by throwing up Toxistall options or Toxipex sets, or even F.E.A.R. rattata. Just because it can counter doesn't make it a good viable option.
By the by Mewtwo loses to Fear, should Mewtwo be in OU? It loses to Sucker Punch mawhile (without Mega), it loses to Pursuit, Switch in Shadow Ball, and has a hard time swapping in due to fragility. those are counters. should Mewtwo not be banned?
The point on dugtrio when it ran rampant, I remember it, it was starting to rise in huge usage, similar to the issue with Ditto and Gyarados on Dynamax. Without Dynamax those Pokemon are decently used, OU capable, but not to the point where almost 100% of teams require them or counters to them or flat out lose. (Gimmicks are not a sound option, nor are one time counters because if it dies you lose.)
That's how things are banned. Not because there are 80 simple work arounds to effect a monster, and heck even with work arounds (Mewtwo as explained) it's still broken due to testing it.
In regards to SR, I've always felt SR was one of the more questionable over centralizing elements but as Rapid Spin became more abundant and for a period of time gained advantages (such as the recent speed boost chance) I can slightly understand it staying it, although it hinders many types of Pokemon.
Dynamax doesn't just hinder many types of Pokemon it creates a threat from any specific Pokemon whether you have a viable counter or not. Thank goddness Garchomp didn't survive the cut or it'd be near impossible not to run a team dedicated solely to it.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@HeroponRiki You're being kind of disingenuous:
"Dynamaxing doesn't hurt or overcentralize the game."
Yes it does.. ditto used to revenge kill or revenge set-up on Dynamax Pokemon was overly used due to that primary purpose. They tested Dynamax on ladders for weeks as I recall if not months, and the meta became Dynamax Gyarados/choice Pokemon here, Ditto, with little variety past that.
Just because everything can Dynmax does not make them equal. That's like saying "Magikarp can Dynamax so it's equally as viable as Gyarados." No. Just no. Certain Pokemon were ridiculously powerful in that situation in comparison to others, which is why the ban was voted on.
Just because it lasts a limited amount of time, doesn't change it gives free KO oppertunities to upwards of at least 3 Pokemon. Especially with the likes of Gyarados. Let alone over 100 BP moves for 3 turns with no accuracy reduction, and usually added stat boosts. (water moves = Rainy Day set up making rain teams insane)
In regards to Dugtrio, are you referencing the Sand Arena Vs. Dugtrio vote. Which came down to the issue being Dugtrio and not sand arena which on many Pokemon did not create as many locks or lack of counter plays in the ladders?
Saying it was banned only due to a playstyle of locking down teams to set up easy kills and cheese most teams that didn't specifically have counters on hand for it is again dishonest.
Now whether I agree with all their bans, fair enough, I don't. That doesn't make them illogical or bad or rubbish or pretending it was done because they don't like it's playstyle.
This is the problem many of us have with those misrepresenting Smogon bans, try to not be dishonest about your claims for the bans. Saying something like dynamax didn't over centralize is at best lying.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@Dog The point is to limit luck factors. In real life sports there are still luck factors but they still prohibit additional luck factors. Going "Well luck exists so why even try" is a defeatist and nonsensical position, and makes little sense.
Luck moves are not fully luck based like you believe. Most moves with a % chance, are based on simple math. Critical hits are one thing ( even then some moves and Pokemon can increase the chance of crits hitting or make them formulaic: Absol)
It's not that smogon isn't logical, it's that you are taking a conclusion to the extremes which is fallacious at best.
This would be your idea in a nut shell : "Luck exists so I guess skill in any endeavor in life is meaningless, no one can truly be skilled because of that luck!" Except that's not how it works at all.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@Bobb No. The only Megas as someone else mentioned that were banned were mainly Ubers or ones that were so powerful they couldn't easily be stopped in singles.
Mega rayquaza for instance, because if they had legalized it, it would have been on every team imaginable. (Mega Mewtwos another obvious ban)
Most megas weren't banned due to the fact using a Mega costed an item on said Pokemon which could have been used for a set up boost/focus sash/etc. Most teams had one which slightly over centralized but they were not a free KO card in most instances. Unlike Dynamax Gyarados.
In regards to your second question: Not everybody was forced, but it was a decent option due to stat boosts. Usually a good wall breaker or set up on a team. (Mega Charizard for instance for sun teams)
However again, Megas were far more vulnerable because of a lack of items so if you ended up in a bad match up you were done with whatever Mega you had.
even Mega Mewtwo in Ubers faces a risk due to things like Mega Mawhile Sucker punch.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
@Shepdawg1 The problem with your argument is it over centralizes the battles (Megas at least traded off an item to gain stats/damage) and this was tested on their servers. That's how they realized it was ban worthy in their meta.
Re: One Of Pokémon's Largest Fan Communities Bans Dynamaxing In Competitive Matches
The people always saying "Smogon is elitist." Sound like they are projecting. Smogons rules only apply to Smogon and yet people always whine when they don't even play Smogon.
Sounds like they're upset that Smogon doesn't play by their elitist wants and desires instead of Smogon just creating its own meta which is perfectly fine.
It always sounds like "Wah, Smogon won't do what I want them to do." Despite last I recall Smogon had a VGC playstyle, and other metas as well despite their competitive set ups.