I'd like to remind everyone of the original focus of this topic: We are evaluating if SwagPlay "
makes games entirely luck reliant" and
if should be stopped as a result.
I'd like to address several arguments made by the pro-ban side in this post with an anti-ban rebuttal.
1. This is not a legitimate team strategy because it turns the game into literally coin flips.
1a. This is a "strategy" because it is reliant on RNG.
I disagree. This is an oversimplification of SwagPlay. For a very basic analysis of how it actually works, I suggest looking at my post here:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/swagplay-evaluating-potential-bans.3500620/page-11#post-5260897 Iterated SwagPlay based on a single Swagger usage with Substitute/T-Wave results in the strategy becoming statistically more reliable than Sleep Powder! I don't see anyone calling for a Sleep Powder ban or a Focus Blast ban becausse of the luck factor of its miss chance.
Just imagine how ridiculous that argument would be (particularly before the grass type immunity to Sleep Powder change): "We need to ban Sleep Powder because it causes the game to become luck reliant. It's almost a coin flip that it can entirely disable a Pokemon in my team. When used in conjunction with abilities like CompoundEyes, the luck becomes even more tilted in favor of the Sleep Powder user."
I conclude that the move set as a whole is reliable and competitive, no more coin flipping than someone utilizing Focus Blast, Sleep Powder, or Thunder when not in the rain, for example.
2. Pokemon should be like Chess without luck or RNG factors.
Given that the community is alright with a variety of "hax" in the game, this isn't a valid argument unless you have more to back it up. Just saying this without analysis of SwagPlay to conclusively prove that it is an unreliable strategy that is more luck reliant than the most luck reliant moves that are commonly used in the meta-game, this statement does not address the first point of the topic --
does SwagPlay makes games entirely luck reliant?
If you use this argument, please provide evidence that, given normal strategies against SwagPlay (or even optimal strategies if you're feeling lucky), SwagPlay is less reliable than accepted RNG-based factors and is indeed unreliable.
3. SwagPlay should be banned because it is only countered by obscure counters like Numel or forcing people to carry Magic Bouncers.
This argument is inherently flawed because SwagPlay does not REQUIRE you to carry an obscure counter to beat it --
if it did, we would be banning SwagPlay under the clause of overcentralization of the metagame, NOT due to luck-based factors.
Consider the following: Any defensive Pokemon with low attack that is capable of breaking a SwagPlayer's sub is likely to win the standoff. Typically speaking, a SwagPlayer will be unable to deal more than ~30% in a given turn, without +4 or +6 boosts on the defensive Pokemon. This means that, given enough turns, the defensive Pokemon will almost always win.
An example of a defensive Pokemon that fits this description would be
Rotom-W who can Volt Switch to destroy both the sub and remove confusion. This will result in a net GAIN of turns, since that requires TWO turns of set-up.
Mandibuzz can cripple SwagPlay by landing a single Knock Off.
Blissey/Chansey take such trivial damage that they should win every time given any reasonable attack. Now, these are just the hardest counters -- they are significantly others who will win iterated SwagPlay against a SwagPlayer.
I believe we can all agree that SwagPlay does NOT overcentalize the metagame. Thus, we need to look at the argument as if it is valid for point 1 (luck reliance). Arguments of this nature should not be accepted as valid for point 1 BECAUSE they do not offer evidence and rely on strawmen like Numel.
4. A strategy in competitive Pokemon should be based on SKILL and not LUCK, therefore we should ban SwagPlay.
I hear this one bandied about due to the effectiveness of the Swaggerificc experiment, where a formulaic SwagPlay team reached 1400-1500 ratings on the ladder. Yes, a formulaic approach to SwagPlay will result in a decent ladder rating. I don't believe this is good proof that the strategy is any more luck based than any other one, however, because we don't have a sample size.
To prove that this argument is flawed, I offer up the following hypothetical situation:
Suppose someone made a HO team with a suicide lead and 4 fast sweepers and a Bisharp or something. The strategy is as follows:
1. Taunt if Smeargle or something that needs to be taunted. We can make a rudimentary list of Pokemon that this will beat.
2. Lay hazards.
3. If still alive, start attacking.
Iterated:
4. When the suicide lead dies, switch into the first Pokemon that has an SE against the enemy.
5. Use the SE attack on the enemy.
6. If you have no attacks with neutral coverage, switch to someone who has an SE attack against the enemy.
7. Loop.
Exceptions:
If the enemy sends out a common Defogger like Mandibuzz, switch in Bisharp.
I assert that this non-skill based formula team could possibly have a surprisingly good ladder score -- possible comparable to the rote "Swaggerificc" style of SwagPlay.
Furthermore, imagine if someone called for a ban on suicide leads with fast sweepers because it was not skill-based because you could use a formula like this!
SwagPlay in its purest form is analogous, but more advanced SwagPlay users do use skill in conjunction with smarter team comps for effectiveness just like how a smarter user of HO would use their team. Consider the following:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/supreme-swaggotry.3497647/ This is an example of a team which has a smarter comp and requires more skill to use. It was able to reach a very respectable rating.
--------------------------------------------
Conclusions
I believe that, without further evidence that contradicts my findings, we cannot conclude that SwagPlay is (a) entirely luck reliant, as it is more reliable than some accepted strategies (b) requires no skill, as it is likely no formulaic that some other team archetypes in terms of usage and can be improved significantly both in usage and in team composition and (c) requiring obscure counters to beat, as it is defeated by many common Pokemon, such as the most used pokemon in OU currently.