pachima

Yes. We need Knock Off.

IGN: Deffonotpachima Name (Showdown/Smogon Forums): Whatever random name I'll find Time Zone (UTC): UTC Discord: dumbino Preferred tiers: Any Motivation: Maybe Accolades or experience outside MMO (Showdown, Smogon): Showdown

Ye. It clearly didn't work. Your ability to process also clearly didn't work because this post was written by none other than you. And before JJ calls me out for calling you out. I have nothing against TC nor any of its current members. I am against the sheer bias and incoherence that I would not expect from someone in your position.

This is hilarious. Gallade was tested at 1.3x sharpness and did absolutely nothing, in a tier where Zapdos wasn't a thing yet. It was buffed to 1.4x and the only thing that it was negatively doing was the weird 1.4x mechanic that was hard to emulate in a calculator (Which it wasnt, but whatever). But players not only want to convince me 1.5x is immediately uber, but that it would continue to be so even if Sacred Sword was to be removed. This is beyond ridiculous. This would be massively different if we had not tested this pokemon with a very slight change in damage. But we did, and it was extremely underwhelming. Just wow.

I want to understand why is Gallade a priority but not suicune, which is consistently sweeping late rounds, disregarding even teams with zapdos, serperior or rotom. But I expect absolutely nothing anymore from this absolute joke. I also want anyone involved in this decision to properly pinpoint to me all the important matches where Gallade did anything worth mentioning and where Suicune at some point in the game simply didn't say: I click CM once. I win.

I don't think anyone wanted UU to be exactly as it was before. It was bad. I don't disagree with dropping new Pokemon to test them. I disagree with dropping that many Pokémon in a tier that wasn't yet solved nor balanced. There is a massive difference between adding variables to something that is somewhat fine (Confines the variables to only those that are added), and adding variables to a tier that was already a mess. (How do you know the new stuff is creating issues, or are they just exacerbating the issues that were before them?) This is why I don't like how they handled UU. Tests are supposed to test how impactful new stuff is. You cannot meaningfully test anything without understanding how impactful the previous tests were. Instead, these tests hope to magically fix the mess they created before. Over the past months, we have witnessed a chain of drops, where each one justified the one after it, in a neverending loop of nonsense. Obviously it wouldn't have gone well. While I don't think anyone was for the status quo of the past format, I can answer your final question: We should be willing to test new stuff only after the current meta is somewhat balanced. It is harder, yes. But necessary if we don't want to spiral into whatever we are witnessing right now.

1- October to July is the only comparable metric. You cannot and should not compare the first month of a new season to a non-first month of any other season. You said yourself the tier was more diverse and others said more people were playing it. That's a lie. Less people are playing it when compared to the same first month of last season. Neither is the tier more diverse, but that's a bit more complex and I will just choose to agree to disagree here. As you rightfully said, there is a subjective aspect in this issue and I will not be dragging it any further. The tier getting progressively worse is very much expectable. We have never seen a season in where subsequent months increased their usage when compared to the first month in its season. Maybe you could argue that I cannot 100% guarantee it will happen again. Yes, you could, and yes, I would agree with it. But you can't convince me to ignore what until now was an extremely consistent fact either. 2- I have played the current tier. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here typing. 3- I explained this in the post above. 4- I agree that post was not entirely necessary. I do not agree that you haven't given your opinion about Staraptor yet. You have claimed that the tier is fine and that nothing warrants any discussion yet. Staraptor is in the tier so that includes Staraptor too. Unironically, I am not really against any of the mons extending their suspect test. I am against this thread. Discussing Lucario without discussing other issues is irrelevant. It is less than a subatomic band aid. If TC wants to properly confirm how much damage the drops created, they should be extending these suspect tests one month further, so we can actually see by how much usage keeps dropping when compared to the same timeframe last season. Maybe I am wrong and this season will be an anomaly where people took longer to adapt, and will play it more next month. Maybe I am not. We would know for sure if suspect tests were actual tests and not random trash flying around every month. In sum, while I was opposed to some of these drops, now that they are here, at least properly evaluate them, otherwise you have accomplished nothing in understanding which threats specifically are the issue.

You don't seem to understand. If Staraptor is a bigger issue than Lucario, then discussing Lucario is pointless, because it implies we are discussing it in a tier where Staraptor is in it. And how do you know Lucario is what creates an unhealthy environment and not Staraptor or any other dropped threat? You don't, and this is what I don't like. However, if we can agree that something else is the primary problem, then we should be discussing it first. Then, and only then, we could properly evaluate other stuff in the tier. In other words: What would discuss Lucario without discussing Starptor accomplish? Nothing. The entire conversation would revolve around a tier potentially warped around something else, in this case, Staraptor. The entire conversation would be absolutely irrelevant. This is why I dislike when random threads are opened for the sake of it, hoping they miraculously fix the tier. No. We shouldn't be discussing Lucario before trying to understand why or if there is a problem with the tier. We should be discussing whether Lucario is the first Pokémon to discuss. And in my opinion. It is not.

You are partially right. I am not pissed off that Staraptor is in the tier. I am sad that the tier dropped 30% in usage when compared to the last first month of the season. Everyone, especially TC, should be looking at these numbers and discussing them. Instead, we have a very vocal minority that believes this is irrelevant and keeps lying about how the tier is diverse and how more people are playing it now. No, they aren't. Even though we had massive changes and changes always lead to a surge in usage, numbers are extremely lacking, and will get progressively worse as the season drags on. I already know you will run circles around these numbers to fit whatever you see. I don't care. Numbers are numbers. You asked for numbers. I get you numbers. You are also right. The post was better fit to the UU tier discussion request thread. However, I believe Staraptor deserves its own thread much more than Lucario does. I also don't believe in discussing a less problematic issue before dealing with the most problematic ones. I may be pathetic, but this doesn't derail the thread at all. Pointing out your hipocrisy that has been saturating all your posts non-stop helps others understand by how much they should be willing to listen to whatever you keep claiming. Be consistent in your own words. That's all I ask. If you can't, then I have every right to point it out for everyone to see.

1- Data is publicly accessible. 2- This is a Pokemon tier discussion. Not a thesis about some universal truth. Most things to be discussed are subjective, or were at some point. Most numbers or statistical leaps created to ease Pokemon movement discussions are still fundamentally subjective. People here are stating their opinions based on facts provided by either their experience or by the numbers provided. If you don't agree with their opinion, explain why. Completely disregarding an "opinion" in a thread that is supposed to gather different ones is completely idiotic. I understand you don't like an opinion that is different than your own, but at this point you are caio 2.0.

How in the goddamn hell is this the first thread when Staraptor is destroying everything uncontested? Are we even playing the same tier? Are we even playing? Is it because of Lucario's sheer numbers? Numbers do not dictate brokenness, and they have been thrown around in all sorts of inconsistent ways regardless. "B-but Lucario is unpredictable. You need to know its set to handle it". Sure. The difference is that once you know Staraptor's set, you are still exploding your team and risking predicts that will otherwise also explode if that predict misses. "B-but there are limited switches to lucario". Good. There are no good switches to Staraptor. "B-but Lucario has decent 90 base speed". Good. Staraptor has 100 "B-but Lucario can set up and kill stuff." Good. Staraptor doesn't need to set up to kill stuff. This doesn't mean Lucario is not necessarily an issue, in a tier that is no longer a tier anymore. Its a clusterfuck of pandora's boxes holding together a mess. However, I find it extremely laughable how anyone playing this tier can open a Lucario thread before Staraptor when it comes to a potential uber offensive label.

It was funny the first 209586 times. Now its just sad that you keep repeating the same lie to the point where you believe it was true, even though I disproved most it personally. Also, we have demonstrated why the tier is bad. The numbers clearly show how centralized the tier has become, and all you have said to argue against it was an idiotic sentence that somehow managed to contradict itself in the same paragraph. (Thanks @Bertolfoso ) Regardless, I have a better proposition: Drop everything including PZ 🙂

There are so many wrong things in here. The tier is objectively more centralized. The number of Pokemon that lost viability or enough usage to be called viable more than doubled, outscaling the number of those that dropped from OU. There is no discussion here. It is an observable objective fact. Now, for the red part: You can't claim teambuilds are good by picking 6 offensive threats, without context, neither can you infer that because people don't do it, it means those threats aren't "broken". If everyone was using the same offensive cores, then every game would revolve around multiple speedties. No one wants that. No one likes that. Balance teams will always appear to mitigate the effects of these issues. "The great defensive ability of UU stall" What does this even mean? The tier is dominated by offensive threats and the few walls that can somewhat control them will be obviously played with the mentioned offensive threats. Stall isn't an issue in UU, and it hasn't been for several months. Stall being used was a symptom from the fact Entei-Shaymin-Salamence were destroying whatever offensive opposition they would have. The tier could adapt to it if these 3 were simply gone, and instead, they simply decided to drop everything, making it even worse. To add on this, I find it extremely hilarious how everyone flipped their madness once Sableye got 4-5% extra usage when people panicked over Gallade, but no one cares when the same Pokemon raised by 10% in UU. This is dishonest and very glaringly biased when it comes to tiering in general. Unfortunately, there is no solution anymore. You cannot simply get everything you dropped back again. The best way to properly evaluate the damage created is to wait and try to understand the numbers across a whole season. Any individual discussion that we might hold in the future will just reveal how clueless whoever created that discussion is. You can't expect the tier to magically fix itself by removing 1 piece of a very large and complex puzzle)

Considering Bronzong has been above Darmanitan for the last 3 months straight, I would say none of you know how tiering works. I don't care what the reasoning behind whatever nonsense spouted regarding Bronzong is. You either fully address usage as it is, or you disregard it entirely. Cutoff points exist for a reason, and those can be subjectively shifted. Simply deciding that they can force things to stay within a lower tier regardless of its implications in a usage system is the equivalent of saying: We messed up so badly that the only way to try to contain whatever we created is to open an even worse Pandora Box that surely won't backfire or create illogical precedents (Which we will simply ignore or avoid like the plague because we can now control the tiers in any way we see fit) If they are willing to destroy the very basic premise of their own system, the question ceases to be: Why is Darmanitan OU?. Instead, it is: Why isn't Darmanitan UU? But no. They created a specific ruling that allowed Bronzong to stay in UU, under the false premise that the affected Pokemon does not consistently attain enough usage to be OU. They even overruled any and every rule estabilished before by creating a very poorly designed draft that doesn't even understand nor itself nor very standard percentages (Because surely a Pokemon not attaining consistent 8% in OU, where samples are so big, must mean that Pokemon is logically UU). I would be at the very least minimally ok with this ruling if it was properly studied, analyzed, explained and reviewed within enough time for its changes. Instead, they panicked at their own mess and instead of following their own rules, they suddenly created something out of thin air that is both quantitatively and qualitatively awful. Finally, if they are actually considering breaking these rules, then I believe whether TC is or is not competent is no longer relevant here. This is too much power for 5-6-7 individuals to possess, regardless of how good they are, considering pretty much all of them are part of an inner bubble that doesn't really reflect the game's competitive overall aspect at all. If they are willing to overrule very basic aspects of our tiering system, then part of that power should be given to a bigger sample of elligible players, who are most affected by it. Yes, filtering the playerbase to a minimally acceptable competent group of players can be hard, but if you aren't willing to put effort for such a change, then you are not ready to enforce that very same change at all.