Bertolfoso

@Neoplasya The game won't get any more fun, I suggest you to drop it after beating the classic story/postgame, since all the game will offer (time limited events) from that point will be PvP, shiny hunting and Raids. Grinding and grinding for multiple hours to get to the "fun" part is accepted and "normal" here. This is basically a mobile game. The good thing offered is the community aspect, but this is not unique to this game. The people you are arguing with are the personification of sunk cost fallacy, thousands and thousands of hours spent (if they have had fun, totally fair!), but there's a reason why MMOs are a dying genre, while even some of the longer games (like RPGs etc, 70h+) are considered the best gaming can offer. Saying 200h are not enough to judge something is pretty insane. I would bet these people would not be opposed to people hacking their Pokémon in for VGC and real life tournaments in order to skip grinding.

You are free to disagree! However, if you claim publicly that what I'm saying is wrong, you have to justify it, which I have been hoping you'd do since your first reply. Ok, let's say didn't have the intention of bringing up statistics, and you weren't the first if I remember correctly. Your intentions are irrelevant. I made it about statistics now and you chose to reply to me. Not only that, you decided that what I had presented was incorrect. With this, you decided you wanted to be part of a conversation where statistics played a big part. You have to back up your statements if you want to keep being on topic - it being my original message. I insist, don't simply claim conclusions are wrong without explaining why you think so. I made sure to try to reply to all of your points during our discussion. I think it would be fair if you did the same. For example when I highlighted the difference between UU and OU's stats. You either have misunderstood or are maliciously misinterpreting my points. I have never singled out a Pokemon in my original post. My comparison was the clearly higher Win % of the top Usage % Pokemon (MULTIPLE) in comparison to other tiers, which can be used as proof of centralization of Power (Win %) in the UU tier. When you applied "my" logic to another tier (NU, in this case), you actually just repeated yours: you singled out a Pokemon, Hitmontop, instead of looking at the entire cast. In the screenshot of the Usage/Win % I purposefully removed which stats were associated with which Pokemon to further illustrate that the fact that the singular Pokemon itself does not matter, but the ecosystem does. I repeat myself, I am only showing something that, in my opinion, highlights the presence of a problem, but DOESN'T give the solution to it. How it can be approached is to be decided by the community and Tiering Council, but the issue, until proven otherwise, is a elephant in a wardrobe. I not once have spoken for or against action specifically against L-word. To make it clear, I have decided to change my profile picture so that you can be reminded of it while you write your reply 😄

While I admit that proof is too much to require as it would be insane to constantly take screenshots of usage stats for no reason other than to maybe use them as a point in an argument in the future, context is really important. Surely if you were to drop Dragonite in NU, we would be able to admire inimaginable numbers of Usage % and Win %. Of course, nothing we are talking about is this extreme, but the example should show you that simply saying that has no value. I do address your Garchomp point in my previous post, which you seem to have missed. "This is certainly subjective, but I wouldn't call a 51/52% win % exessive. It definitely is good, especially with 48% usage, but nothing extraordinary. Of course, both of our claim (about this Garchomp situation) is subjective. " At the cost of repeating myself, I don't think 51/52% is really too impressive. I think the majority of players would think that 48-52% is around what a regular Win % of a Pokemon should be if the meta is not particularly against or favouring them, or they are part of it in an non oppressive way (not 100% of cases of course). A low usage Pokemon may have a high (53%+ imo) Win % if it's anti meta, a new discovery made it better, new structures has made it so it can shine, and so and so on. If you insist with this single example of statistic, you should make clear why these numbers are so impressive, if they are. My previous message represents an image of multiple Pokemon being responsible. Also I was not playing this game in 2020 so your claim of me being a goldfish does not have concrete bases, in addition to the fact that a goldfish would have trouble in operating a keyboard. Also goldfish don't live in the ocean so they can't forget about their existance since they are not aware of it in the first place. All of this is in the context of a discussion of a singular Pokemon which I had hoped to make clear that I am doing. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes, I am not complaining about Lucario. If my intention was to push the ban Lucario movement, I would have posted whatever I thought would help the process of getting rid of it in the Lucario thread. My point is that the statistics justify the (widespread?) sentiment of something being not correct in the tier. Identifying it is clearly not easy. You yourself have complained multiple times about how many Pokemon people complain about. Different people have different priorities and different ways they would approach the problem I'm trying to highlight. "High usage mons have decent win rates. Oh no, how could this be? This is an uncacceptable, people are playing mons that are winning. Why would they do this? This is not okay. The most used mons need to have low win rate." You seem to have missed the point. Let me reiterate. It is a proven, statistical FACT that the higher the Usage %, the more the Win % is closer to 50%. This is undeniable. There is no magic that will make that statement false. You can't disagree with this. If you do, you don't have an open mind, you don't care about discussing with others and you are not worth talking to. If you agree, we can continue. Well, the phenomenon I am describing is unique to UU if you look at the stats. There is no simple way to put the data in a sheet quickly, but a simple eye test shows that the numbers are higher than NU, a tier where people feel there's some unbalance (I have no personal opinion on this, though most months Usage % and Win % are not too high at the same times, at least not overall), and significantly higher than OU, which I think people consider pretty balanced. Sincerely, do you not see any difference between UU and OU top usage Pokemon's Win %? If you do, what do you think of that? For some reason, you decide to single out Hitmontop, completely ignoring what has been said until now, which is that I am not examining a single Pokemon, but the situation surrounding all of the most used Pokemon in a tier. To be honest, you didn't explain anything. You simply claimed to have seen singular Pokemon with high Usage % and high Win %, which is, as explained multiple times, not what is being discussed. You are not blamed for not being a database, however you do need to have something to prove if you want to have your arguments based on statistics. You can't simply claim something on the bases that it is likely that has happened, if it's something specific. This is not to say that this situation has not happened and if it has happened, it would be important to know the reactions of the playerbase, tiering system and metagame adjustion that made it move past that state. If you lose your birth certificate, it does not mean you were never born. It does mean that the information inside of it is lost. People who do not have a birth certificate, despite being obviously alive, do not have access to many Rights. You can get more information about it here: https://www.unicef.org/documents/every-childs-birth-right Your arguments may benefit from better analogies!

NOOOO why am I falling for the bait ... That needs proof and context. Empty statement. Also, I said "Do mind that I am not referring to any singular Pokemon in particular.", so while Lucario is definitely not off-topic, it was not what I was talking about. This is certainly subjective, but I wouldn't call a 51/52% win % exessive. It definitely is good, especially with 48% usage, but nothing extraordinary. Of course, both of our claim (about this Garchomp situation) is subjective. Good time to remind you again that I wasn't talking about a singular Pokemon but a tier/metagame. While the statistics I presented do not necessarily show Lucario as the problematic one, it does show that something is not right for a non-Uber tier. Care to actually provide something concrete? This is the comparison between tiers of Usage% and Win% of the months the game shows us currently, the ones that pop up without scrolling: graphic design is my passion, someone hire me I have removed the Pokemon to show you once more that I'm not considering any singular one in my argumentation. Order of tiers is NU - UU - OU, surely you can see something different among the most used Pokemon in each tier. (Edit: image is readable, you have to click on it and zoom in)

Since we suddenly started to love statistics (@ Lucario thread), I would like to add a point of discussion. It has been pointed out multiple times that the tier is "centralized", defined as a simple function of usage %, however I think it's important to consider Win % as well. While often Win % is used (in my opinion, misused) to strengthen an argumentation of overpoweredness (big Win % = OP!!!), it can be used in conjunction with Usage % to give an idea of the state of a metagame, since they are linked. How are Win % and Usage % connected? In a mirror matchup (defined here as both teams having the same 1 Pokemon, e.g. both teams have a Lucario, or Salamence, etc.) the Win % of the Pokemon shared by both teams is, by definition, 50% (one will be in the winning side, the other in the losing). The higher the usage of a Pokemon, the higher the chance of a mirror matchup happening. This means that the higher the usage of a Pokemon is, the more its Win % tends to 50%. The general frustrations that have been directed towards UU can now more easily be explained. For the past months (multiple), the most used Pokemon have had very high Win % even though their success rate is diminished by the mirror matchup phenomenon. This also means that these top Pokemon win way more against teams that are not using them. If you still do not believe this (which is pure maths, so uhh go to school?), it's undeniable that the other singles tiers are not in a similar situation. Do mind that I am not referring to any singular Pokemon in particular. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. An Uber-like tiering philosophy can be adopted, where the unbalance of power is accepted and, like in the tier of legendary Pokemon, the notion of too strong is a hard barrier to cross. Personally, I do not think this would be coherent with the two other tiers that are linked to UU, but this is not my call to make. So, whose call is it? Well, one of the bigger issues the competitive scene of this game has is the lack of continuity and long term planning the tiering council system encourages. Tiering decisions are too reactionary, with no purpose other than dealing with the immediate X trouble. This is also caused by the fact that its members rotate quite often (not in real world time, but in number of decisions time). Uhh i definitely forgot to say some stuff sadly my brain is damaged, now i disappear again woo

The plan is to add the generation 5 fan made sprites, eventually

Done, thank you! Let me know if there are any issues. Alterei os links, diga-me se houver algum problema

Updated download links (let me know if there's any problem with them!) Added sprites for: Ivysaur, Charmeleon, Wartortle, Caterpie, Metapod, Weedle, Kakuna, Pidgey, Pidgeotto, Rattata, Spearow, Ekans, Sandshrew, Nidoran Male, Nidorino, Nidoran Female, Nidorina, Clefairy, Vulpix, Jigglypuff, Zubat, Oddish, Gloom, Paras, Venonat, Diglett, Psyduck, Mankey, Growlithe, Poliwag, Poliwhirl, Abra, Kadabra, Machop, Machoke, Bellsprout, Weepinbell, Tentacool, Geodude, Graveler, Ponyta, Slowpoke, Magnemite, Doduo, Seel, Grimer, Shellder, Gastly, Haunter, Drowzee, Krabby, Voltorb, Exeggcute, Cubone, Lickitung, Rhyhorn, Rhydon, Tangela, Chansey, Horsea, Seadra, Goldeen, Electabuzz, Magmar, Porygon, Omanyte, Kabuto, Heatran, Darkrai, Shaymin, Shaymin-Sky. Adjusted sprites for: Bellossom, Breloom, Drapion, Drifblim, Gengar, Luxray, Pachirisu, Riolu, Totodile, Weezing. I await your feedback and I hope you enjoy!

I haven't tried Raid Matchmaking this event, but I want to ask to those that did if the limit of having to have completed the easier 3* raids in order to join the 4* ones has helped in finding better teammates in the 4* ones

I had been wondering what the point of making it time limited for balancing reasons was if it could just be circumvented with a well timed summoning, but, while i still dont fully agree with the Time Limited Summoning as a solution (it depends on what difficult content you have planned on, that can't be trivialized by even 1 better-than-Darkrai legendary), that bolded sentence makes it much more understandable as a decision.

I agree with subzi's argument against Darkrai's limitedness, but I also agree with the fact that the event is definitely not the worst. I think the biggest issue is that most people were looking forward to raids as a means to reach a certain reward or prize, while not realizing that the reward is the friends we made on the way is actually engaging and fun content that you have to tackle with different strategies and friends. I ask some of the people in here to look again at how they are, they are not meant to be another way to get something that is already acquirable through other means in the game, they are meant to be fun and enjoyable (which is subjective! But shouldn't depend solely by the reward). While I understand that there is a sort of time pressure if you want to make the most out of the money-farming-ability event, and that is in part true, in order to not miss out on other stuff, I recommend, if you have teammates/friends to tackle them with, to try to avoid guides or strategies for the first few attempts and try to use your own creativity to win. It'll make it more enjoyable than simply following instructions like a bot would. The other Halloween activities are ok, the expected ones from past events/years, with the only change being in the balancing of Special Candies, which I think is a good change. I personally don't care too much about these since they are repetitive and not new, but for newcomers it should be fine.

Hi, sorry for the late reply, you need to have my mod below the generation5 followers sprite mod, like this:

i've given up on this game's tiering, still i dont like opinions spread like facts

Not even addressing that basically all you've said is subjective opinion/feeling, but it's funny how these 2 sentences are so close to one another.

I will do my best to finish it, however I'll be quite busy in the close future so I can't promise on anything. Thanks for the comment

I would like to someone (preferibly someone with decisional power) to answer me at which point did the tier get the reputation for why it's "bad" and why nothing has been done to fix this. People are proposing all kind of insane - from a policy PoV - suggestion, like 3 suspects at a time, unbanning several, if not all, UUBLs (this is not meant to critique any of these) because of the state of the tier. When did this happen? It is genuinely hard to find someone that is happy with the current state. And if you, reader, agree with this widespread feeling, can you please tell me specifically why you feel this way?

How come this was opened while Blissey's suspect test is ongoing (almost 2 months btw)? Is TC gonna voice their opinion this time (the ones that play, at least)? This tiering system is so slow and flawed people are asking for THREE pokemon to be suspected at the same time, but everyone seems ok with it apparently

take me 300k if i still can take

Rate the teams best to worst

In my opinion it's pretty clear that UU has been run in a pretty controversial way, I haven't gone too much around to ask opinions, but the ones I've heard were generally not very positive. I think there is a problem with how TC operates in general, but no tier has suffered more than UU for the entire time I've been playing this game. This is not meant to be a personal attack to the TC members, but I believe it is necessary to have some self-reflection on the matter. The problems are mixed, from being too much on the forums and too little on the actual game, causing some of the points of discussion being inaccurate or generic, or being on the forums too little, where one wonders if they are still alive. There is no transparency. Some accountability would be nice. TC role is at the same time important (representative of the community) and irrelevant (do they actually have any influence?). To properly guide metagames one needs to have a vision in mind, but from what I observe it seems extrememly fragmented, if there is one at all. Another issue is the way that TC's work is communicated and delivered to the community: forums, which are pretty outdated and unattractive to newer users. Communicating is clunky and not intuitive. Why not make an official discord server à la Team Tournament, where discussions are more easily held and there is soooo very much needed function of polls? This is basically adding to what Pachima said, because I believe this issue is rooted in passiveness and the way to fight it is to keep pushing. Sorry for the confusing post, but the situation is pretty confusing itself

noobenger

There is not really much actual discussion/conversation. Can the pro-ban side explain why what Blissey does is not good for the tier? Most of what I've read is just stating Blissey's role more than why it should be banned. Another personal request, can you please explain what's the difference of it walling every special attacker in OU and in UU?

IGN + Discord: Bertolfoso Timezone: UTC +2 Preferred tiers: SV LC, can play others but i'd rather not unless necessary Edit: dont expect high activity from me

Literally took every word out of my mouth, I agree completely with this

Blissey does not fit current stall builds in my opinion. It carries a similar role of special attacker wall like Clefable and Umbreon, but it is not good enough to replace either. It can't ignore boosts like Clefable does, and does not check Sigilyph like Umbreon does and is very easy to take advantage of. Maybe new structures will be explored and then maybe you could talk about it (I doubt), but as of now I think Blissey prefers Balanced and Bulk Offence builds, and some structures of Sun. I actually see it potentially being healthy for those teams to have a mon that can ease teambuild a bit, help with the myriad of threats around that restrict teambuilding with only 1 slot, à la LandoT for physical threats in other metagames.