Jump to content

pachima

Members
  • Posts

    2675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

pachima last won the day on December 24 2022

pachima had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • IGN
    pachima

Recent Profile Visitors

15214 profile views

pachima's Achievements

  1. medicham 2.0. Surely yanmega won't be a problem this time.
  2. We have finally reached a point when, in the very rare situation where Caio is right and Sweet is wrong, some hiveminded people brainlessly side with Sweet, dismissing Caio, not because it is the logical thing to do, not because the argument tells them to do so, but simply because in their minds the argument is less important than whoever claims it. (Tip: It isn't) Weavile IS a Serperior check. I don't care what gimmicks you want to extrapolate, or whatever you want to say or imply or claim. There is proper terminology in the Pokemon world and instead of actually fighting for or against the actual arguments, we loop between semantics where some have no idea what they are talking about. Thank you VadimEmpoleon for going through it properly. Regarding Dugtrio, and, most specifically, Gb's post on it. It is true some of Dugtrio's targets can dodge. Some can pivot, others have enough bulk. Yada yada. But you missed the fundamental point. Dugtrio is not supposed to hard switch against them. It is supposed to gain free momenum beforehand so it can then trap its target. There is only one way (Barring the very irrelevant Shed shell), to prevent this, which is to never play the Pokemon before Dugtrio is taken down. Congratulations! Dugtrio has successfully pressured their threats without even being on the field. This is unhealthy. Or, is it? Magnezone and Tyranitar can, in a way, accomplish the same. So what is the difference between these two and Dugtrio? The amount of targets they possess. The first two have very limited choices, while Dugtrio is able to delete a very significant part of the format. This is the main reason why the Pokemon was chronically banned in most formats. It is very easy and worthy trading a death so Dugtrio can then safely delete the threat you want to get rid of. But what is the unhealthy part? Is it Dugtrio? Is it Arena Trap? The issue with this question is you cannot completely separate the Pokemon from their ability (Or whatever else they possess). Afterall, Diglett and Trapinch are not an issue. Does this mean Arena Trap is inherently unhealthy? Both yes and no. Since this is probably hard to grasp at first glance, let me find something else: Wonder Guard. Is it broken, or unhealthy? Not necessarily. Afterall, Shedinja is harmless with it. Let's see another harmless Pokemon in OU: Jolteon (Yes, irrelevant enough so it is not even OU). Jolteon with Wonder Guard would be both broken and unhealthy. This is interesting because Jolteon by itself isn't an issue, and neither is Shedinja with the ability. It is the combination of the two that would make it a problem. Maybe you can argue Arena Trap isn't unhealthy. You can definitely argue Dugtio isn't broken. But you can't simply state that because A and B are not an issue and share an ability with C, then C isn't an issue either. To answer the question. What is the unhealthy part? Not one or the other separately, but simply the combination of the two. (Yes, I understand Wonder Guard Jolteon doesn't exist. The argument is still the same)
  3. Depends on timezones tho.
  4. Nothing goes over his head. He is too fast. He would catch it.
  5. IGN: Deffonotpachima Time Zone (UTC Format): UTC Discord: Dumbino Preferred Tiers: all Fluff: Shiny rate is fair Donation: 333k (soon tm)
  6. On one hand, this will be a disaster. On the bright side, you might not even need to select the managers at all.
  7. My pleasure. I appreciate someone taking the effort to actually go through. There are a few things I guess we can just agree to disagree, and that is fine. One or two I actually disagree and will discuss upon it, and a few I'll have to give it to you. Let me try to make it simple. This is the part I disagree with the most, and it is very easy to understand why by comparing OU with UU and NU. OU is very stagnant, and the same defensive cores are used and abused. When spectating UU and NU, games are usually much more diverse despite the fact it is far more common to have unbalanced shifts in those tiers. Having un unbalanced metagame doesn't correlate to having a restricted metagame. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt, and NU is a very good example of why so. I bolded something that I believe highlights a misconception about competitive Pokémon in general. I feel people are unable to manipulate the field in order to pressure opposing threats. They feel they can simply react to their moves, by simply clicking the "counter" to whatever they play. This unfortunately has lasted for far too long in a format that for some reason kept encouraging this. This is not playing Pokémon, despite whatever some stall players will tell you. Even stall can't be reactive. If it can, then there is something extremely wrong with the format within. You need to be both reactive and proactive. When it comes to wallbreakers, you cannot think: Oh, I need to stop this. No, you need to think: I need to prevent the opposing team from being in a position where I am forced to stop it. Sometimes you can't do this either because the Pokémon is too strong, or because the format has not enough tools for it. In these cases, said Pokémon should be evaluated. This is not the case in OU, where most common Pokémon can actually handle with Gallade. It is solid not in the sense of countering, but in the sense of being a defensive Pokémon that can both prevent Gallade from entering, force Gallade out AND force Gallade to risk a very non-spammable move if it wants to catch it on the switch. That's solid enough for me. Zapdos can run brave bird to guarantee the KO, if needed. In a defensive variant, you are really not using the extra hurricane power at all. Regardless, again, I feel this is a mentality thing rather than a objective and simplistic view of counters and checks. Either way, I agree what you said when claiming Zapdos shouldnt simply be added in a team that is already weak to Gallade, expecting it to magically solve the problem. I deffinitely agree with the bolded part, tho, which can neuter the bird pretty easily. Lucario IS more manageable than Gallade. I agree. When it comes to purely wallbreaking tho, I considered the set: Flash Cannon - CC - Tpunch - Ipunch. It is very hard, nigh impossible to reliably entering on it with a very defensive team, which was my argument. Before anyone claims I added no priority, Gallade doesn't use it either so that point would be moot. But yes, Lucario usually prefers running priority, mostly because just how better having an extra answer to offense is than to purely relying on it to break cores. On the other hand, Zapdos is much more solid against Lucario than against Gallade, so there is that. Hydreigon is tricky. While it is slightly easier to switch against it the first time, it also doesn't need to predict much, and most importantly, it can enter the field far more often than Gallade can, putting the enemy in a position where it simply cannot outgrind its presence with the few counters to it. (See? Pokémon is complex.) This was not the set I considered also, but for this point in particular it is irrelevant. I don't consider calculating without rocks a wise choice simply because it is far too easy to keep pressure on those rocks in the tier. But I can get behind the argument, despite disagreeing with it, and it is just one of those things where I will simply choose agree to disagree. On the other hand, AV Amoonguss and/or careful Gliscor was something I overlooked, and I am willing to give that to you. This will be a double-edged sword. First, I disagree what you said, or at least with the reasonings you have given to me: It is inconceivable people would stop arguing if the Pokémon in question wouldn't be still broken. We had countless examples where in the past, people wouldn't stop complaining just because something moved up/down to justify another unbalanced format. Second, I never said Gallade at 1.3x or 1.4x was weak. It simply broke people's perceptions of how good it actually was. It shattered its new toy syndrome, while sadly creating a "nerf" syndrome, in where people tend to use nerfed Pokemon less despite how good they are. (More on this soon)(tm) Third. No, we shouldn't ignore complains now, but we deffinitely should try to understand why those complains suddenly were missing until now, which revolves back to the point I made yesterday. Finally, and because you made the effort to post this, I will help you for your own argument, highlighting the bold part. That sentence can open a new premise. Pokemmo has a very very very (very) slow adaptation process, and it is actually possible the buffs fell upon Gallade too quickly, not giving players enough time to adapt to it, as well as to shatter the nerf syndrome. You said Gallade increased its usage. Maybe, if the test lasted longer, it could have reached high enough numbers to shut down my argument. Maybe not. We cannot know. I can accept this, and I felt it would be good pointing this out for TC to evaluate everything properly and as less biasely as possible. TLDR; Overall, Gallade abuses cores people were used to play with. This is not unhealthy at all, but most just refuse to adapt. Analyzing OU's usages, we could have seen how much the format changed when Rotom-Wash was added, destroying Hippowdon's and skarmory's usage. We could have seen Garchomp skyrocketing Weavile's usage. A pokémon that was in UU for a long time before it), and how much it increased Starmie's usage, which was heavily declining until then. We could have seen Serperior dropping Rotom-Wash severely. It is very easy to understand how much a problematic Pokémon can shift its format, and yet, Gallade hasn't done any of this in any significant way. (Sabaleye rising a few points isnt significant, not when compared to past shifts). On the other hand, it is possible that not enough time was given to OU to adapt to its nerfed variants, which may or may not impact its validation within the tier.
  8. And this is not necessarily bad. You can't expect every threat in the tier to have common answers that deal with them reliably. This shouldn't happen. When it does, it creates extremely stagnant metas centralized in the same defensive cores... (Note how I just describe OU's current state). OU is in a very toxic spot right now. Its players have grown so attached to cores that worked 2-3 years ago, and still work to this day (A few top 10 players are still using teams they had success with 2-3 years ago), that they now refuse to adapt to anything that disrupts them. But I digress. Zapdos is a very solid answer to it, and I expect people to adapt this new Pokemon to better handle Gallade. Gliscor is actually decent, and while it is not a very reliable answer, it vastly helps by pressuring opposing Gallade into needlessly risks, while also maintaining a defensive pressure against it overall. 1- It is funny you mention Lucario and Hydreigon. You cannot actually stop any of them defensively in a reliably way, without either gambling with their set or correctly predicting what they are going to do, something very similar to what happens with Gallade currently. It is not funny you didn't mention Dragonite, because mixed Dragonite has literally no counters, nor any semi-feasible way at stopping it with a slow-defensive team. It is also interesting to note Mixed Dragonite is not even commonly used, mostly because having no counters in a meta dominated by 3 offensive threats (Scizor-Garchomp-Dnite itself) is not as big as some people claim it to be. 2- I agree with the premise. Gallade has very few counters. I completely disagree with its conclusion. Having no counters doesn't mean the Pokémon sweeps easily most of the metagame. This doesn't generally happen, and definitely doesn't happen with Gallade. 5 out of the 6 most used Pokemon can reliably prevent Gallade from keeping its momentum, or at the very least create a pressuring factor where Gallade is unable to come in. This by itself invalidates this conclusion, and therefore also invalidates it meeting offensive uber characteristics in the way you have presented. 3- Not sure where to start. First, claiming not many people use the forums is a very desperate, and yet false attempt at dismissing the argument. Lots of people use the forums. Some are more vocal than the others. If anything is an issue, you'll see several different people commenting on it. Also, you should read the bolded section of your text, and try to understand why Gallade failed to have an impact so. 4- On the contrary. It is very relevant. It is the most relevant factor whatsoever in this whole discussion. In fact, outside of very few individuals, not many people are complaining about it now. They used to in the past, before the nerfs proved to them Gallade wasn't as harmful as they thought it was. Gallade is a very solid Pokémon, don't get me wrong, but we really can't be nerfing anything new that can be a threat, mostly because it suffers from the new toy syndrome. If Garchomp was to come in right now, even without SD, and attained these numbers, I can guarantee you many more people would complain about it. Either way, even unnerfed Gallade doesn't have impressive enough numbers to justify anything regarding it by themselves. Either way, it is impossible to dismiss whatever happened to this Pokémon while nerfed. It wasn't used much. It wasn't complained about as much. Why? Because it wasn't good enough for it to be either used nor discussed about. Then it was buffed a bit, and it was still not good enough for any of them. This comparison IS the best metric to gauge Gallade's effectiveness in the format, and you simply cannot dismiss it. Regarding the calculations you followed with. At first glance, it may seem that those probabilities's shifts between 1.4x and 1.5x are relevant, when in fact they are not. Besides the fact you'd still be relying on rolls and prediction, literally any other residual damage, including the omni present stealth rocks turns both situations into surefire KOs. In practice, you won't see much difference between the calcs you listed at 1.4x and 1.5x, and I appreciate you for actually proving my point with them. I will also take advantage of this post to mention TC, or most importantly, whoever is higher up in their hierarchy, in general. While I disagreed at first with the way Sharpness was nerfed, and while I still disagree with how the community wasn't made aware of it beforehand, in hindsight the change made it a lot easier to identify exactly how and if Gallade was/is actually an issue in the tier. Following this example for potential future nerfs is something I now would gladly hope for, but please, please please please please please, this is not something you nor anyone should tread lightly around a very small group of people. If you ever nerf something to some random value later, please inform the whole community of what you are considering to do, and how exactly you plan to do it, and what the alternatives are, so everyone else can help into creating the correct way of an eventual nerf. Sorry for the wall of text. I would tldr, but Thinknice would kill me 😞
  9. 1.5x is its original value. Having sharpness at 1.5x is therefore expected. The issue arised when they began changing basic mechanics to better fit their perception of the metagame, opening unwarranted precedents in the future no one asked for. Sharpness shouldn't have been nerfed to an arbitrary number. I agree with this. But we are beyond that now, and regardless of whether it made sense or not, we gained information upon its nerf. Sharpness was tested at 1.3x, and Gallade dropped hard, pretty much showcasing how much its fears were overblown out of proportions. Then it was tested at 1.4x. It still didn't have any negative impact in the tier, which was the only reason why Sharpness was reverted back to its original value. They shouldn't have done this, but they did, and neither do you nor I have time machines to prevent what already happened. The best thing we can do is analyze what these nerfs showcased and how relevant these nerfs are in the first place. 1.4x to 1.5x is very negligible. If the Pokemon is an issue now, it would have be an issue then, and yet it wasn't. Not even in the slightest. This is not a Gallade issue whatsoever. This is what happens when there is no transparency in most of their decisions regarding new stuff added into the game. This is something they apparently are willing to slowly change for the best, but this isn't a conversation to have in this thread. This can't be more objective at all. Gallade went through 2 different nerfed variants in the format. It failed to have any impact in both. None of these are suppositions, or what ifs, or yada yadas. This happened very recently, and so far no one gave me a solid enough argument as to why a 7% boost in its sharpness moves is enough to turn an overall average Pokémon into the monster some people claim it to be. You ask me to calculate. Why? Calculations are used to follow-up an argument. They aren't the argument at all, despite what some people choose to believe. One can give me different calculations, and yet miss the most fundamental aspect of them all. How often can that Pokémon force the enemy giving up into that position? How often can the selected move be spammed while minimizing prediction risks? How often is that Pokémon on the field, and once it is, what are the requirements for it to be in there in the first place? And honestly, lots of other factors, because competitive Pokémon lurks deeply into a complex grey area. A bunch of calculations will never be able to answer this properly, and I really expect people to actually start using them more sparringly, or in tandem with proper arguments for them. Either way, we literally had the most objective metric for its viability, and it failed miserably at showcasing how good it should be even with a 1.4x boost. I will repeat once more. A 7% damage boost is not significant enough to turn that Pokémon into something truly problematic, therefore, if it didn't prove to be an issue then, it most likely is not an issue now. Finally, the format is even better equiped at dealing with Gallade now than it was then. We gained access to Zapdos, which even though is not the perfect answer, or whatever people like to use to feel comfortable in a game that shouldn't have them in the first place, is solid enough to control Gallade properly.
  10. This makes no sense considering the difference in damage between 1.4 and 1.5 is less than half of the range of a roll. Yes, 1.5 > 1.4. But you cannot possibly convince me a Pokemon suddenly getting a 7% damage boost jumps from not worthy discussing besides opening the pandora box to nerfing in general to borderline broken.
  11. a +2 adamant orbed wallbreaker wallbreaks. What was even the point here? If anything, this shows how extremely biased the metagame and this community's mentality is towards a much more defensive gameplay to the point where they complain a wallbreaker does, in fact, break walls once set up. The only argument that could be said is no longer relevant. Sharpness shouldn't be nerfed to a random boost unused in original games. If it is too strong, it should be outright banned or at least nerfed to some common grounded value. It is not too strong. Its numbers aren't that impressive either. Period. People refusing to adapt shouldn't warrant any ban or any decision whatsoever.
  12. In here we did: - Compare Dugtrio with Hydreigon - State trapping and wallbreaking are only different semantically - Imply a Pokemmo metagame works in the similar way to cleaning a house - Discuss Gallade in a dugtrio thread, for something Dugtrio never was, ignoring semantic issues ofc (A wallbreaker) Now, a Pokemon doesn't need to be massively used or incredibly good for it to be uncompetitive. There is a reason why different definitions were created regarding a Pokemon ban. Uncompetitiveness by itself isn't also a binary aspect. There are several levels to this. Some can be tolerated. Others cannot. Togekiss is uncompetitive, but opens a significant amount of viable and common answers to play around what makes it so. Dugtrio doesn't. It existing warps the metagame around it negatively. We have seen it in NU, where the metagame was completely centralized around it, and magically opened itself as soon as it was gone. In here it is not as extreme as it was there, but we still don't have good enough tools to play around its trapping capabilities.
  13. Discussing potential threats individually, ignoring the outcome of subsequent decisions is wrong either way. This was something I used to pinpoint and they very readily dismissed it, without providing any viable argument whatsoever. They treat this competitive game as something much more linear than what it really is. Sometimes it is not possible to accurately check every ramification. Sometimes the affected Pokemon do not interact with each other in a significant degree. But it is very common for a few variables to be immediately taken out of the equation, allowing them to freely discuss what is left in tandem. Either way, can't wait for the NU discussion to begin. The issue I said above is much much more glaringly obvious in that tier, since everything listed is able to counter or enable each other in a very significant way. If they keep the individual discussions from 1574 with those given names, we are set to a complete set of disasters that will turn the medicham incident into an irrelevant meme.
  14. You may be the only person discussing its bulk here, right now, but not in discord, neither you were the only that also pushed the argument before. Sorry if the wording offended you in particular, but it wasn't my point. Just wanted to express that such is an irrelevant discussion to have as of the moment. Gallade wasn't nerfed for long enough to be dropped, and it also suffered from a lag syndrome. I am sure it would drop if more time passed. Everything you said after that just reinforces that if you want to discuss Gallade, make it when it comes to the absurd dev agenda, as you claimed. That's the only valid concern about it. Custom changes like that are an awful precedent and we should be discussing that instead of trying to argue its brokenness in a format that has proved countless times doesn't exist.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.