gbwead

I just think the projects need to be more clear. When people have to do bug reports, they have to use the following format: Would it be possible to present everything with a format like that? I'm one of the players that follows the forum the most and I am genuinely confused with what is actually being suggested here. I can't imagine anyone understanding that they have to give their input in the recently reopened April thread about a matter that will affect July movements, but with some reference to what happened in the May thread. It's imo a mess.

Fine. Let's assume they were silent. The announcement still says freezing would only last 1 season. You can't suddenly use that same announcement as a reference point to make this change permanent because if people or TC wanted to object to this becoming permanent, they would not be able to because they were never asked to give their input. They were asked to give their input about testing freezing for 1 season, they were not asked about making freezing a permanent thing. Also, if the point of testing freezing for the first two months is to check how a season will go, you need to actually go through with the season. By trying to cancel now season changes, you are destroying any basis on which your test was being founded.

They never expressed an interest in that idea to begin with. I asked multiple TC members about this and they had no idea where that announcement came from. Also, the announcement clearly states that it would apply to 1 season. So according to that announcement, TC would not even need to express their will for it to go back. It would go automatically back unless TC asked for the test to be extended and they would never ask such a thing because the idea of freezing is outrageously stupid to begin with.

"Upon request by the Tier Council we will be trying a season where we do not have usage based movements during the first 2 months of a season and the last month will currently have the old cutoff of 4.36% but we are open for discussion on changing the cutoffs for that." That was an announcement about testing the very stupid idea of freezing. The idea is now tested. It sucked as expected. How exactly did that stupid idea become a permanent change? The announcement clearly states that this would only apply to "a" season, to a singular season. It's over now.

Can you link the exact post because I don't see the announcement?

when did that ever get announced?

1.7% and 6.7% are mentionned in the tiering policy. I have no clue what you are talking about.

"Freezing the seasonal usage movements until the next month" there hasn't been a single usage movement in the last 5 years that didn't occur on the third month of each cycle. Freezing usage movements is the most stupid and useless idea ever. Why would you freeze usage movements when there is no movement to begin with? 1.7% and 6.7% cutoff points are so outrageously low and high that nothing ever moves. Then on the third month, everything goes to shit because everything moves up and down freely. You need to bring the 1.7% cutoff point closer to 4.36% and the 6.7% cutoff point closer to 4.36% as well, so we can finally have movements that respond to meta changes and adaptation. Our usage system is garbage and the idea of freezing movements is one of the worst thing that could ever happen. Please stop entertaining such an horrible idea.

I will most likely handle these situations case by case. If a country has never participated in WC before, I still want the captain and the 3 mandatory donators to at the very least be from that country. If someone has participated in WC 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Brazil and suddenly they want to be considered one of the 3 mandatory donators for Mongolia, well that will take a lot of convincing because I would be inclined to not believe them. No limit. If a country wants to split, they must organize themselves ahead of time to make sure they will have the necessary funds to get selected. I'm not sure about this. I would like more input from the community on this matter. I might rework some aspects of the selection process based on donations, so I'll keep all of this in the back on my mind when I will make changes. However, I'm not super confortable imposing a maximum amount of players per team.

Poll is up. Let me know if I missed any suggestion.

Fair enough, but small reasons for the PP nerf reversal can add up to a big reason, so it's important to take note of this small reason here because whenever a push for the reversal happen we will be able to look back at this.

When the recovery PP nerf was introduced, it affected many pokemon and still got implemented. Why would changing back be a last resort now, but wasn't a consideration at the time? This goes both ways. I agree with the principle that nerfs as undesirable as they may be should impact the least amount of pokemon as possible. The recovery PP change wasn't implemented for balancing purposes, it was a game design decision, it was a dev choice ultimately. It's not a PokeMMO nerf where the original game gets altered, it's a gamefreak change in gen 9 that PokeMMO chose to implement. The argument that now we can't go back because it would affect many mon just doesn't hold.

This isn't chess. There can't be any draws.

List of the suggestions so far: Sharpness Nerf/Removal Recovery moves PP back to 16 Sacred Sword Nerf/Removal Gallade base stat reduction Release of new features (Legendaries/Hidden Abilities) to deal with Gallade

It doesn't need to wall many things. All it needs to do is switch in, do its thing (tank hits/spore stuff) and then get back 1/3 of its hp back for free as you send in your counter vs a sleeping target. Amoongus doesn't counter dnite, chomp and excadrill on its own, but it stops them by taking hits in exchange for rocky helmet chip and then allows counters to switch in safely after sleeping w.e threat is in front of them. For what it is worth, I don't think Amoongus is crazy good vs offense, it's just decent imo. The match up of Amoongus vs stall is what bothers me the most tbh. That's what makes Amoongus busted imo. For a while, we had Weezing doing great to punish Amoongus, but seeing how Weezing is falling to UU in usage, I'm starting to seriously question its viability (perhaps Gallade is to be blamed). Playing stall vs something like Venusaur, I would be able to pressure it by knocking off its black sludge and/or force it to take dmg for which Venusaur would have to use a recovery move like Giga Drain or Synthesis. Vs Stall Amoongus hardly cares about getting knocked off or being forced to take dmg. Amoongus doesn't need to do Synthesis to heal back up, so Blissey using Flamethrower or Ice Beam vs a predicted Amoongus is utterly pointless. Rotom using volt switch to chip a Venusaur/Chansey is progress, Rotom using Volt Switch to chip an Amoongus is pointless. If my Reuniclus that doesn't take hazard dmg forces in Sableye (or Milotic Haze prior to the recovery PP nerf) that takes hazard dmg, that's progress for the Reuniclus player long term. If Sableye/Milotic forces in Amoongus on the field, Amoongus could not care less about the temporary dmg it will take from hazards or the Ice Beam from Milotic. As soon as Amoongus switches out, all that chip dmg is gone, Amoongus is not forced to use a recovery move PP unlike Sableye and Milotic. It saddens me that if I want to play stall, I have to play Amoongus (or the less viable Weezing). I no longer have options.

Mienshao is fine. Amoongus is completly busted tho.

In the event Gallade is deemed banworthy by the Tier Council, how should Gallade be nerfed in order to be reintrocuded in OU? Whether or not you agree with the decision to potentially ban Gallade, what changes to Gallade or the metagame would be the most appropriate to ensure PokeMMO remains Uberless? Sharpness Nerf? Gallade Movepool Nerf? Recovery PP nerf reversal? Feel free to suggest direct or indirect ways the development team should handle Gallade. In 72 hours, I will open a poll with all your suggestions. Since I got no response from any staff member in the Gallade discussion, I assume this thread is the right place for players to discuss the optimal dev solutions to Gallade.

Historically, players have never been asked for their opinions regarding potential nerfs, so it's pretty much never the right place or time. Edit: If this is not the right place, can I open a thread so players can discuss nerf options publicly?

So in the event Gallade gets banned, when and where are we going to be allowed to discuss nerf options? What's wrong with players suggesting solutions?

How about 1 billion? Would you be okay with me banning you from wc6 if the cash prize reaches that amount?

The 3 donators rule is extremely easy to exploit, so if countries can't bother to organize themselves to meet this requirement, these countries are simply not organized enough to be represented.

Correct

This rule would not apply to this WC. I see no issue with Mainland China and China Taiwan being represented in this WC, assuming they both get the necessary funds to get selected.

Don't worry guys, Lugia and Ho-oh will handle Gallade just fine.

If Cuba gets selected and the Cuban captain accepts you, you may play for Cuba.