Jump to content

January 2023- Movement Discussion


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Probably the worst OU metagame in many years. Please do something @TC    

Agree. is a nightmare face Clef Unaware Cosmic Power. Once your mon with fight-type attack dies, is Game Over.
also, stalls are even more harder to break, with Regen/Poison Heal running. I've facing a bit less trouble because my team pressure the opponent a lot. But for majority of players, isn't the same scenario.

Edited by caioxlive13
Link to comment
20 hours ago, gbwead said:

@Munya @TC    

 

The recent addition of Regenerator on Amoongus has severely increased the amount of abuse of the 1 hour time limit clause. Would it be possible to ask TC to amend the 1 hour time limit clause?

 

Imo, a simple solution would be to not take into account Regenerator mons when the timer reaches 1 hour. For instance, if player A is stalling with 4 mons and player B is stalling with 5 mons (including 2 regenerator mons), player A should be the winner because, if we don't consider regenerator mons, player A is stalling with 4 mons and player B is stalling with 3 mons.

I believe this would be fair since player B by playing 2 regenerator mons is forcing the duel to last longer and therefore should be penalized for doing so. It's insanely easy to stall for hours with multiple Regenerator mons and this should be consider an exploit.
 

What? What???

Amoonguss + Slowbro can be a brutal regenerator core to crack, but I assume in this instance you're referring to Amoonguss + Mienshao given the aforementioned Slowbro not having Regenerator implemented...

Not really sure how those two guys are stalling you out for hours unless you're running 6 chanseys lol.

 

Just do away with the timer. I don't see a purpose for that in a competitive environment, especially since recycling berries is not possible. 

Link to comment

@caioxlive13 stop quoting me. My posts have nothing to do with your Cosmic Power Clefable or w.e scream you made. My position on the 1 hour time limit has never changed. My position on Regen mons in combination with the 1 hour time limit has also never changed.

 

55 minutes ago, deletee said:

What? What???

Amoonguss + Slowbro can be a brutal regenerator core to crack, but I assume in this instance you're referring to Amoonguss + Mienshao given the aforementioned Slowbro not having Regenerator implemented...

Not really sure how those two guys are stalling you out for hours unless you're running 6 chanseys lol.

 

Just do away with the timer. I don't see a purpose for that in a competitive environment, especially since recycling berries is not possible. 

Reaching the 1 hour time limit has never really been difficult, but now it's just riddiculously easy. You don't need 6 chanseys. Mienshao by itself was already able to stall out teams for ages. With Amoongus on top of Mienshao, it has become insanely difficult for stall players, semi stall player and balance players to achieve anything in only 1 hour against cores that take way longer to break through. 

Something must be done because it's not competitive to just play passive agressive regen cores and wait for the 1 hour time mark knowing damn well that regen cores are at a huge advantage.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, gbwead said:

Something must be done because it's not competitive to just play passive agressive regen cores and wait for the 1 hour time mark knowing damn well that regen cores are at a huge advantage.

I suggest implementing legendaries.

Spoiler

xDDDDDDDDDD

 

Link to comment

Those regen cores are a problem, but let's think a little:
- Amoongus itself can stall for 1 hour alone without other regen support? Yes. But insanely difficult to do that.
- Same question to Mien and a mon that gained poison heal, a ability too good for hold games than regenerator: Gliscor. They can stall for 1h without other regen support? Yes, but is too difficult to do that
- However, what if we put Amoongus + Gliscor on a team? The difficulty to hold for 1h the match fells. On the future we can or can't have Slowbro regen, but if he got their HA, and you put on your team along with those two? Again, difficult to hold match for 1 hour will decrease.

Regenerator is clearly not a problem. Regen Mons(with Regenerator and Poison Heal) also not, some of them alone are 100% healthy and good additions to meta. Amoongus come on a good time, as a extra answer to Serperior and descentralizing the defensive options for it on Weezing and Golbat. Mien never become a issue. Gliscor(even if are boring a lot to face) still are healty, and not become insanely broken with Poison Heal. 

If the difficult for bring match to 1h time limit fells when you bring more than 1 regen mon(not mattering if are Regenerator or Poison Heal) on a team, why not simply limit the amount of mons with regen abilitys that you can bring on your team? This solve the problem in grand part. Changing tie-break rules to ignore regen mons when counting the tie-break criteria, like Gbwead suggested, finish the job.

Edited by caioxlive13
Link to comment
On 1/7/2023 at 9:02 PM, gbwead said:

@Munya @TC    

 

The recent addition of Regenerator on Amoongus has severely increased the amount of abuse of the 1 hour time limit clause. Would it be possible to ask TC to amend the 1 hour time limit clause?

 

Imo, a simple solution would be to not take into account Regenerator mons when the timer reaches 1 hour. For instance, if player A is stalling with 4 mons and player B is stalling with 5 mons (including 2 regenerator mons), player A should be the winner because, if we don't consider regenerator mons, player A is stalling with 4 mons and player B is stalling with 3 mons.

I believe this would be fair since player B by playing 2 regenerator mons is forcing the duel to last longer and therefore should be penalized for doing so. It's insanely easy to stall for hours with multiple Regenerator mons and this should be consider an exploit.
 

Agreed, that time limit was idiotic anyways.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, gbwead said:

@caioxlive13 stop quoting me. My posts have nothing to do with your Cosmic Power Clefable or w.e scream you made. My position on the 1 hour time limit has never changed. My position on Regen mons in combination with the 1 hour time limit has also never changed.

 

Reaching the 1 hour time limit has never really been difficult, but now it's just riddiculously easy. You don't need 6 chanseys. Mienshao by itself was already able to stall out teams for ages. With Amoongus on top of Mienshao, it has become insanely difficult for stall players, semi stall player and balance players to achieve anything in only 1 hour against cores that take way longer to break through. 

Something must be done because it's not competitive to just play passive agressive regen cores and wait for the 1 hour time mark knowing damn well that regen cores are at a huge advantage.

(To clarify I'm the one you quoted, apologies I was logged into the wrong account)

 

I've personally have never had an issue breaking that core, especially with Mienshao's frailty even with the popular Assault Vest. 

 

I do generally run a lot of HO teams so it would be unfair to not take your anecdote for what it's worth. I'm sure you're not just making it up.

 

Kinda just circles back to removing the timer. Bulky stall teams obviously deserve a place in the meta, if anything a 1h timer either handcuffs that playstyle or makes the wincon uncompetitive, like you said. 

 

I'm shocked the timer running out doesn't result in a draw or "No Contest" at the very least. Seems hastily designed. 

 

Edited by drewq
Link to comment

@Munya I would like an answer for the following three questions:

 

  1. What is the specific justification for Dugtrio being banned in UU and not OU? 
  2. What is the opinion of TC on my suggestion to change the cut-off points?
  3. What is TC's plan regarding our horrific OU metagame?
Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
On 1/10/2023 at 6:51 AM, gbwead said:

@Munya I would like an answer for the following three questions:

 

  1. What is the specific justification for Dugtrio being banned in UU and not OU? 
  2. What is the opinion of TC on my suggestion to change the cut-off points?
  3. What is TC's plan regarding our horrific OU metagame?

@Munya, you are replying to other threads on the forum, but you are blatantly ignoring me. What will it take to get an answer? Do I need to have people sign a petition in order for my concerns to be taken seriously?

 

I don't get it. You unleash the most unhealthy feature for competitive battling despite being warned of what would happen and now you are choosing to pretend like nothing is wrong. Please say something. Please do something. These problems are not going to magically go away no matter how long you wait or choose to ignore them. 

 

Link to comment

1. Nobody in TC has initiated a discussion or made a request for it to be so, I'm not stopping anybody.

2. Cut-off points are still being discussed but i think general consensus is desynchronizing tiers is a bad idea, for various reasons but I think the biggest one on peoples minds is seasons occur at the same time.

3. None yet, its a popular point of discussion atm though.

Link to comment

@Munya, thanks for your answers. I'm glad these points are being discussed.

 

Regarding point #2 about cut-off points and desyncrhonization, I would to clarify that it's possible to have desyncrhonization without affecting seasons. Let me detail the previous example I gave in order to clarify what I meant:

Season (January / February / March)

Quote

 

January

  • OU/UU (based on December's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 6.5% 
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 2.0%
  • UU/NU (based on December's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 5%
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 3.5%

February

  • OU/UU (based on January's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 5% 
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 3.5%
  • UU/NU (based on January's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 6.5%
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 2.0%

March

  • OU/UU (based on February's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 5%
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 3.5%
  • UU/NU (based on February's usage)
    • Move Up Cutoff point: 6.5%
    • Move Down Cutoff point: 2.0%

 


In the previous example, seasons still start at the same time and end at the same time even regardless of the followin changes:

  • Cutoff points changes
    • Move Up Cutoff point
      • From: 6.7% on movement averse months and 4.36% on movement seeking months.
      • To: 6.5% on movement averse months and 5% on movement seeking months.
    • Move Down Cutoff point
      • From: 1.7% on movement averse months and 4.36% on movement seeking months.
      • To: 2% on movement averse months and 3.5% on movement seeking months.

The main difference regarding cutoff points changes is that the move down and move up cutoff points would no longer match on movement seeking months.

  • Desynchronization
    • From: OU/UU Movement Averse Months matching with UU/NU Movement Averse Months.
    • To: OU/UU Movement Averse Months matchking with UU/NU Movement Seeking Months.

The main difference is that when it is more likely to see movements in OU/UU this means it will be less likely to see movements in UU/NU and vice versa. Seasons would still occur at the same time.

 

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

@Munya It's has been several weeks now. Last week, you said some of the issues I brought up were still being discussed. What's taking so long? Why is everything being discussed behind closed doors? Did the detailed example I gave help clarify any confusion regarding the wrong assumption that desyncrhonisation would mean seasons don't occur at the same time?

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment

Thanks for making Regenerator even more valuable than it already was. That's definetly what we needed...

 

Seriously, was it really that hard to engage with the community to discuss potential solutions? You guys just made everything worse without bothering to ask for any input whatsoever. What's the point of these discussions threads if you clearly don't care about what any of us have to say?

Link to comment

Funny. MMO balancing has always buffed a more defensive playstyle to the point MMO meta is by far the stalliest of most gen5 metas out there.

 

Funnier. Most were so hyped to see stall further buffed with hazards slapped on most walls, because apparently MMO isn't stally enough for those people.

 

But God forbid them to actually balance the game and for the first time in ages giving a buff to offense, when compared to official counterparts.

 

Besides, some people completely forget the fact Pokemon is a game and are willing to spend 1 hour of their life per match, mindlessly clicking recovery buttons, just because they are either unable to think, or simply refuse to. This, while not being necessarily a bad thing, is not fun, and happens WAY too often, the the point most tournaments are dragged to hell because of a few matches that delay the whole thing. Most people don't have 5-6 hours to invest straight in each tournament, and honestly, neither should anyone. Again, I am not saying it shouldn't happen at all. Just that it happens way too often.

 

Does this completely kill defensive styles? I don't know. I can't know, and neither can anyone. We have never tested similar changes, and any comparison between this and other metagames outside this game are irrelevant. And while it may indeed unbalance this game and turn into an issue, it's a risk at least I would be willing to take. If it works, we may be able to turn tournament into a much more enjoyable experience. If it doesn't, then they'll find a way to mitigate it somehow if deemed necessary.

 

 

Link to comment

From my experience from gen9, even after those nerfs, stall is still very much viable and many top ranked players in gen9 OU reach really high ranking with stall teams- but there are so many other different mons, unaware, regenerators, heavy duty boots and more that I'm very skeptical about how this change will affect our meta. I really hope this can get reverted and maybe possibly we can get something like PTS to simply check how this would work in our metagame before fully implementing and accepting that kind of change.

 

I can understand the argument that it's inveitable at some point, but is this the moment to do it?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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