Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 32383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 1296

Thread: Official Serebii 5th Gen Tier List & Standard Rules Discussion Thread

  1. #1026
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eaglehawk View Post
    That takes the charm out of playing the LC tier.

    It's like being a 40-year-old virgin. It sucks.
    Not necessarily. I do see where you're coming from with that answer, though.

    For example, for some level 5 LC Pokémon, 252 EV's in a stat is identical to 180 EV's in that stat. If those Pokémon were level 100, more movesets could be made, and there could be more thought on EV distributions, since you'd have to have 252 EV's in an offensive stat for it to truly max out in "LC 100", whereas in "LC 5" you'd only need, say, 180.

    Still, if not a tier, I'd certainly not mind a "Little Cup 100" battle or two. (:





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  2. #1027
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    694

    Default

    i dont think you understand. if level 100, there would be pokemon nearly impossible to break through, i.e. tangela. there would also be too huge powerhouses(cant think of any, too early). at level 5, it kinda levels out the stats to make it fairer.

    granted it would be easier to ev train and all that, more movesets, etc, but it does take the fun out.

  3. #1028
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thedarklord2155 View Post
    i dont think you understand. if level 100, there would be pokemon nearly impossible to break through, i.e. tangela. there would also be too huge powerhouses(cant think of any, too early). at level 5, it kinda levels out the stats to make it fairer.

    granted it would be easier to ev train and all that, more movesets, etc, but it does take the fun out.
    What's stopping anyone from using the same ban lists as LC 5? (I think Tangela is banned in LC 5, too.)

    For reasons that some Pokémon's stats may be extremely "imbalanced" at level 100 compared to those at level 5, it wouldn't be an official tier or anything, just something fun that some would enjoy.





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  4. #1029
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    A place
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dewhinifier View Post
    Also in the news is the sand veil discussion of OU. Serebii's own complete legitimacy has been leading a charge for the more reasonable sand stream + sand veil ban. In other words, a team can't have ttar/hippo and a sand veiler on the same team. I'm thinking this is most reasonable since it'll be a check to sand...just like a swift swimmer on a non-rain team.
    I suppose I'll elaborate on this, since there seems to be some opposition in this thread. Sand Stream + Sand Veil is the better ban to make in this situation, even though it's a "complex ban". What makes Sand Veil hax different from missing Hydro Pump is that before the match you make a decision when using Hydro Pump. By using Hydro Pump, you take a risk, that the move will miss 20% of the time. If you don't want to miss, then it's simple: don't use Hydro Pump, use Surf instead. However, Sand Veil is different, because you don't have a choice as to whether your 100%-accurate move will miss or not. The decision lies entirely in the hand of your opponent. By banning Sand Veil, you completely eliminate this factor. Most players think of this as uncompetitive hax.

    Now, I'm going to address why you'd want to ban Sand Stream + Sand Veil over a straight ban on Sand Veil. While it is true that both bans eliminate the uncompetitive aspect of it, the SS + SV ban is slightly more efficient, because while a full ban on Sand Veil does eliminate the uncompetitive hax, it also bans a bit of "competitive" hax as well, if you will. The fact that you can use a Pokemon with Sand Stream and your opponent can use a Pokemon with Sand Veil, and that you can be punished for it isn't uncompetitive at all. In fact, it's what we've come to expect in Pokemon. This example is exactly the same as the Hydro Pump one, and that is most certainly not uncompetitive. This scenario is healthy for the metagame, as eliminating luck from the game completely is practically impossible. Also, some Pokemon are in fact damaged from a full Sand Veil ban, the most notable being Bullet Seed and Encore Cacturne. The benefits of Sand Stream + Sand Veil are seen here as well, and in my mind are what pushes over the fact that this is the right way to do things. i will admit, that if this wasn't the case, simplicity of banlist would trump being "righter", but not this time.

    It's been a few days since I've posted in the Smogon thread, but the idea is gaining popularity and discussion once again so I guess we'll see how it plays out; I tend to avoid those types of threads since they're filled with really stupid posts and/or flaming (read: lots of deleted posts).


    Credit to Blue Harvest for the amazing banner.

  5. #1030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by complete legitimacy View Post
    It's been a few days since I've posted in the Smogon thread, but the idea is gaining popularity and discussion once again so I guess we'll see how it plays out; I tend to avoid those types of threads since they're filled with really stupid posts and/or flaming (read: lots of deleted posts).
    Exactly.

    Personally, I'm not a huge fan of a combination ban. I really think that it is in the best interest of the competitive community to maintain a simple banlist as much as possible mainy for the newer players, but also for the seasoned veterans. I believe that a complex ban should only be implemented if there is a significant amount of collateral damage with either alternative simple ban (as was the case with the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban), and I'm just not sure if we're seeing that here. The argument about Sand Veil being used as an anti-Sand countermeasure is not a strong argument because Sand Veil just isn't a great anti-Sand weapon like Swift Swim is to Rain. The abusers usually have better abilities as well (Garchomp's Rough Skin, Gliscor's Poison Heal, Sandslash's Sand Rush, etc.). However, the real damage here is Cacturne losing access to two of its more important moves, Bullet Seed and Encore. When Drizzle + Swift Swim was being discussed, I stated a couple of times that a straightforward Swift Swim ban was out of the question because it soft banned a couple of unnecessary Pokemon since Swift Swim was their only available ability. This problem with Cacturne (removing some of its available moves) falls into a similar category on a smaller scale. Since there seems to be no way to fix this problem by limiting the ban to OU only, I would not be completely opposed to a Sand Stream + Sand Veil ban. But it is important to remember that since OU is the standard metagame and is the first priority, we have to weigh whether it is more important to maintain a simpler banlist for OU or maintain two of Cacturne's main attacks.

  6. #1031
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,151

    Default

    Wouldn't banning Sand Veil under Evasion Clause be a far simpler solution.

    Creating a complex ban just so Cacturne can use Bullet Seed + Encore? Who cares about Cacturne.

  7. #1032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Harvest View Post
    Wouldn't banning Sand Veil under Evasion Clause be a far simpler solution.
    Yes, and that has been the initial suggestion, but the main outcries against the simpler Sand Veil ban have been directed at the move illegalities it would cause for Cacturne. Two of Cacturne's better moves, Bullet Seed and Encore, are illegal with Water Absorb, so it needs Sand Veil to use those. This wouldn't effect OU much at all due to Cacturne's low popularity, but it will affect NU since Cacturne is the best best offensive Spiker in the tier.

  8. #1033
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    694

    Default

    the thing with having a simpler banlist, and how that combo ban is, paraphrased quote, unquote, "too complicated," for the noobs and old-times, i dont get that. its not like banning so and so egg move with so and so ability due to legality issues or something, where its a tad complicated(at least, to me sometimes). its fairly simple. its just not as simple as banning sand veil.

    by banning both, you're basically saying you cant have this alongside this.

    "you cannot have a cheeseburger and a coca-cola. you may have a coca-cola, or you may have a cheeseburger".

    its honestly not all that complex, or even slightly hard to understand.

    by solely banning it in ou...well, where the hell else are you going to ban it? both hippowdon and tyranitar are above uu. banning it in solely ou is just restating the ban, until certain parameters(is that the word?) are met, by down-grading hippopottas/hippowdon/tyranitar.

    its not really the fact that cacturne loses 2 of its main moves. its the principle behind it. its basically saying, your just an ru/nu pokemon. you dont matter. if terrakion was placed in a "complex" ban, and couldnt use close combat, the entire smogon community(bar prem, cuz prem is gay :P) would be sh*tting bricks. by effectively removing 2 moves from its arsenal, you eventually stop caring, and arcanine loses its flare blitz, and then terrakion loses close combat. its the first thread in the fabric of the metagame to unravel.

    simple bans...are simple. theyre straightforward. complex bans tend to look at all the points, and try and find the ban that causes the least amount of ripples. ♪dont rock the boat♪

    i really apologize if my points make zero sense. its late, and i havent had much sleep. im also slightly drunk

  9. #1034
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    I personally would like to see Sand Veil and Snow Cloak get some sort of restriction. Now whether or not that means saying "tough luck" to Cacturne users for the overall benefit of the rest of the metagame is a different story.





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  10. #1035
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    I honestly have had very little trouble dealing with those abilities bar the odd time (mainly Garchomp and Froslass taking the hit and avoiding the next one). On topic of complex bans, yes, some people can get out of hand about it. Let's look at Swift Swim plus Drizzle, it was simple and straight forward plus the player uses Politoed for its Drizzle ability at their own risk and must watch out for the odd opponent who has a Pokemon with the Swift Swim ability on their team. In my opinion the same can be said with evasive weather abilities and auto-weather abilities, it's a cheap strategy but there's nothing wrong with it when you're not the one activating it. That said, moves that create weather come to mind which could lead to an even more complex ban...

    As for Cacturne, I barely use it or see it so I can't say much but I do know that Encore can be quite useful on a Swords Dance set. In the end, best to let see what happen and hopefully pray for a complex ban if it does happen.

    Now back to Brain Scratch Commentary's Let's Play of Leaf Green where they were ironically complaining about how we find a typical move to be cheap.
        Spoiler:- 3DS friend-code:

  11. #1036
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Harvest View Post
    Wouldn't banning Sand Veil under Evasion Clause be a far simpler solution.
    how is it so much simpler than being unable to have both on your team? its barely a "complex ban". sand veil doesnt increase evasion anyway, i think it lowers opponent's accuracy. why isnt sand-attack banned under evasion clause? because it does nothing for the evasion stat.

    Creating a complex ban just so Cacturne can use Bullet Seed + Encore? Who cares about Cacturne.
    its not about the pokemon. its on a broader scale. its the principle behind it. think of it like this, by domino effect:

    1) sand veil is banned.
    this leads to: cacturne and gliscor both lose a set. regardless if either are used, they can no longer function in that specific niche.

    now sand veil + sand stream, or "VeilStream"

    1) sand veil + sand stream is banned
    this leads to:

    exactly. if you can name a legitimate bad side effect of the combo ban, go ahead. saying its too complicated is a load of straight up horse crap. if you can understand drizzleswim, you can understand veilstream.

  12. #1037
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thedarklord2155 View Post
    exactly. if you can name a legitimate bad side effect of the combo ban, go ahead. saying its too complicated is a load of straight up horse crap. if you can understand drizzleswim, you can understand veilstream.
    I can't run Hippowdon and a Cacturne with Encore on the same team. Yeah, I might like playing risky but I'm not dumb enough to use Cacturn in OU. The only good reason I could come up with is not being able to use Icicle Crash on Mamoswine while Abomasnow is also on your team but (I don't even know if a Snow Warning + Snow Cloak ban is planned) usually the majority of your team knows the powerful Blizzard which has perfect accuracy in hail. Like I said, let's hope for a complex ban.

    Anywho, back to Let's Plays...
        Spoiler:- 3DS friend-code:

  13. #1038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thedarklord2155 View Post
    by solely banning it in ou...well, where the hell else are you going to ban it? both hippowdon and tyranitar are above uu. banning it in solely ou is just restating the ban, until certain parameters(is that the word?) are met, by down-grading hippopottas/hippowdon/tyranitar.
    All bans in an upper tier are automatically applied to all lower tiers as well.

    its not really the fact that cacturne loses 2 of its main moves. its the principle behind it.
    No, that's pretty much it. OU is the standard metagame, the one the others are built off, so it is the first priority of any tiering decision. If a lower tier Pokemon takes a negative effect to a ban, then that can be taken into consideration. But a lower tier problem should never cause an action that would have a negative effect on the OU metagame. The only question at this point is whether or not it is worth the trouble to have a complex ban.

    simple bans...are simple. theyre straightforward. complex bans tend to look at all the points, and try and find the ban that causes the least amount of ripples. ♪dont rock the boat♪
    Smogon has pretty much strived for a simple banlist for as long as they've had a standard tiering system. Each complex ban is going to open up some kind of door that may lead to a slippery slope in one way or another. Now, for more broad bans such as condition + ability bans (as is the case here and with Drizzle + Swift Swim), these slippery slopes are much less of an issue. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as Pokemon + condition bans, which are only nerfs and open up a huge can of worms that we really don't want to get into.

    Quote Originally Posted by thedarklord2155 View Post
    how is it so much simpler than being unable to have both on your team? its barely a "complex ban". sand veil doesnt increase evasion anyway, i think it lowers opponent's accuracy. why isnt sand-attack banned under evasion clause? because it does nothing for the evasion stat.
    Ban Sand Veil = one condition. Ban Sand Veil + Sandstream = two condition.

    tl;dr-simpler

    Oh, and Sand Veil does increase Evasion. You can't just switch out of it and cure the problem like you can with Sand Attack or Flash.

    its not about the pokemon. its on a broader scale. its the principle behind it. think of it like this, by domino effect:

    1) sand veil is banned.
    this leads to: cacturne and gliscor both lose a set. regardless if either are used, they can no longer function in that specific niche.
    Haxy sets, but I digress.

    now sand veil + sand stream, or "VeilStream"

    1) sand veil + sand stream is banned
    this leads to:

    exactly. if you can name a legitimate bad side effect of the combo ban, go ahead. saying its too complicated is a load of straight up horse crap. if you can understand drizzleswim, you can understand veilstream.
    Ok. Cacturne and Gliscor both lose a set. Regardless if either are used, they can no longer function in that specific niche. Either way, Sand Veil based sets on a Sand team become unusable. Since Gliscor has Poison Heal, Garchomp has Rough Skin, Sandslash has Sand Rush, Donphan has Sturdy, and Dugtrio has Arena Trap, there is pretty much no reason to run Sand Veil outside of Sand just for the off chance that you can pull off something haxy against an opposing Sand team.

    And no, saying we should avoid complex bans is not horse crap. Again, DrizzleSwim was a far more dangerous playstyle than Hax Veil, and the collateral damage was a whole lot more than one Pokemon losing two niche moves. It's not the same case. While I would not object much to a Sandstream + Sand Veil ban because of the illegalities it can cause (which I think is something we should really try to avoid), the complex ban argument is very valid and the only real argument against such a notion is the Drizzle + Swift Swim ban, which was originally designed to be a necessary exception.

  14. #1039
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lakeland, FL 33810 in USA
    Posts
    2,884

    Default

    So I can't use Garchomp in official pokemon matches anymore?
    I am here to help others to solve their problem,and I'm also the big fan of Kissshipping.


    FC: 3737-9549-2888
    IGN: Shego

  15. #1040
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shego View Post
    So I can't use Garchomp in official pokemon matches anymore?
    The tiers that most people choose to play by (Smogon's tiers) and the bans between the tiers are in no way equivalent to the bans imposed by official Pokémon tournaments. So yes, you can still use Garchomp in your Nationals if you want. (:





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  16. #1041
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak94 View Post
    All bans in an upper tier are automatically applied to all lower tiers as well.
    my point there was that, there's really no point in keeping it ou only. you will never have perma-sand in lower tiers, so whats the point?

    No, that's pretty much it. OU is the standard metagame, the one the others are built off, so it is the first priority of any tiering decision. If a lower tier Pokemon takes a negative effect to a ban, then that can be taken into consideration. But a lower tier problem should never cause an action that would have a negative effect on the OU metagame. The only question at this point is whether or not it is worth the trouble to have a complex ban.
    i fail to really see how troublesome it is. its not all that complicated of a ban. you are banning this with this. its one, specific scenario, instead of a wide-spread ability. it may look simpler on paper, but the combo ban is just as simple, yet still effective.


    Smogon has pretty much strived for a simple banlist for as long as they've had a standard tiering system. Each complex ban is going to open up some kind of door that may lead to a slippery slope in one way or another.
    i still, again, fail to see any negative feedback from it. @parachomp: thats not legitimate bad consequences. either way you cannot have sand veil with sand stream. seeing as encore cacturne are always sand veil cacturne, well, you get the picture.
    Now, for more broad bans such as condition + ability bans (as is the case here and with Drizzle + Swift Swim), these slippery slopes are much less of an issue. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as Pokemon + condition bans, which are only nerfs and open up a huge can of worms that we really don't want to get into.
    but the point isnt pokemom + condition, its ability + condition. could clarify a bit here, as im sure you had some good responses/points to make. again, sorry if its obvious. im a little out of it, so to speak.



    Ban Sand Veil = one condition. Ban Sand Veil + Sandstream = two condition.

    tl;dr-simpler
    Ban Sand Veil=banning several, seperate entities, of the same idea.

    Ban Sand Veil+Sand Stream= banning one specific scenario.

    tl;dr: not as much simpler as you would believe.



    Oh, and Sand Veil does increase Evasion. You can't just switch out of it and cure the problem like you can with Sand Attack or Flash.
    my bad. i thought it decreased accuracy by 20%. thank you for clearing that up ^_^



    Ok. Cacturne and Gliscor both lose a set. Regardless if either are used, they can no longer function in that specific niche. Either way, Sand Veil based sets on a Sand team become unusable.
    with the gliscor set, i actually dont rely on it to hax-sweep. when using it. it has a great niche as a good tank as well, with substitute + swords dance gaining some serious kills. rarely, if ever, does sand veil ever matter. now, take a poison heal gliscor. 99.999999% of the time, it holds a toxic orb. it stalls. it doesnt hold much offensive prescence, bar the rare sd sets.

    sand veil gliscors tend to be more offensive. poison heal ones are stall. generally. you cant really use acrobatics with it, as a base 55 move sucks, even with STAB. granted, you can AcroFling, but that set has been proven to be bad.

    Since Gliscor has Poison Heal, Garchomp has Rough Skin, Sandslash has Sand Rush, Donphan has Sturdy, and Dugtrio has Arena Trap, there is pretty much no reason to run Sand Veil outside of Sand just for the off chance that you can pull off something haxy against an opposing Sand team. [/quote]
    correct. there really is no reason. other than gliscor's offensive niche. and i dont count toxic + protect + eq + sd/taunt as offensive. it can do nothing to any floating/levitating steel whatsoever, and is completely walled by any levitator/flyer behind a sub. it cant really sweep, and so isnt an offensive prescence.

    i wasnt making it as the same case. that example was to show that, if drizzleswim isnt too complicated to understand, neither is veilstream. i made no mention of comparing the 2 like that in that post.

    going along with that, right now, the main point im trying to make is that its not complex. its not complicated. its a relatively simple to understand ban, as is drizzleswim. its complex in that its more complex than a straight up sand veil ban. its not as complex as say, banning a certain pokemon with that ability, with that move. an example of an extremely complex ban would be banning only blaziken with speed boost with protect. thats a complex ban. this, what were arguing back and forth, is not all that complex.

  17. #1042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thedarklord2155 View Post
    my point there was that, there's really no point in keeping it ou only. you will never have perma-sand in lower tiers, so whats the point?
    Cacturne.

    Ban Sand Veil=banning several, seperate entities, of the same idea.

    Ban Sand Veil+Sand Stream= banning one specific scenario.

    tl;dr: not as much simpler as you would believe.
    When you're looking at the simplicity of a ban, you don't look at the result. You look at the ban itself. Banning Sand Veil + Sandstream + Garchomp + Swords Dance would also only ban one specific scenario. Would that also be simpler than a Sand Veil ban?

    with the gliscor set, i actually dont rely on it to hax-sweep. when using it. it has a great niche as a good tank as well, with substitute + swords dance gaining some serious kills. rarely, if ever, does sand veil ever matter. now, take a poison heal gliscor. 99.999999% of the time, it holds a toxic orb. it stalls. it doesnt hold much offensive prescence, bar the rare sd sets.
    If you don't need the hax to sweep, then you don't need Sand Veil. Gliscor also gets Hyper Cutter which is useful at times against things like Intimidate from Gyarados, Landorus-T, and Salamence, as well as the odd FeatherDance Xatu. You can also just use Poison Heal without the Toxic Orb if you want to abuse Acrobatics, which will give you a safeguard against poison. Sand Veil isn't completely necessary for an offensive Gliscor.

    correct. there really is no reason. other than gliscor's offensive niche. and i dont count toxic + protect + eq + sd/taunt as offensive. it can do nothing to any floating/levitating steel whatsoever, and is completely walled by any levitator/flyer behind a sub. it cant really sweep, and so isnt an offensive prescence.
    Even with Sand Veil, it never could beat Levitating Steels (which literally just consists of Skarmory, Bronzong, and random Balloon users). I don't see how a Sandstream + Sand Veil ban instead of a straightforward Sand Veil ban will fix that.

    i wasnt making it as the same case. that example was to show that, if drizzleswim isnt too complicated to understand, neither is veilstream. i made no mention of comparing the 2 like that in that post.
    It's not about understanding, it's about Smogon's policy and the implications of complex bans. We shouldn't strive to nerf something just to keep it in OU unless it's absolutely necessary, and I guarantee you that if Cacturne's move illegalities were not an issue, Sandstream + Sand Veil would probably have never even been brought up.

    going along with that, right now, the main point im trying to make is that its not complex. its not complicated. its a relatively simple to understand ban, as is drizzleswim. its complex in that its more complex than a straight up sand veil ban. its not as complex as say, banning a certain pokemon with that ability, with that move. an example of an extremely complex ban would be banning only blaziken with speed boost with protect. thats a complex ban. this, what were arguing back and forth, is not all that complex.
    Something is complex if it consists of two or more parts, so yes, such a ban would be complex. Whether or not it's complicated is within the judgement of the individual, but you'll notice I have said nothing about it being complicated.

  18. #1043
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Los Santos, San Andreas
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Guess who's 9 days late with news.

    Gothitelle is now banned from any tier that isn't OU or Uber.

    I can't say much because I never played with it or against it.

  19. #1044
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dewhinifier View Post
    Guess who's 9 days late with news.

    Gothitelle is now banned from any tier that isn't OU or Uber.

    I can't say much because I never played with it or against it.
    Is it just because of Shadow Tag? :/





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  20. #1045
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wishing Star View Post
    Is it just because of Shadow Tag? :/
    It's true. I wonder if this is the work of trolls again, like they did with Metang. Anyway, come to think of it, it doesn't really surprise me. Shadow Tag allows Gothitelle to set up freely if it switches into a Pokemon that can't hurt it.
    DW Pokemon I can offer:

  21. #1046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatchMaster View Post
    It's true. I wonder if this is the work of trolls again, like they did with Metang. Anyway, come to think of it, it doesn't really surprise me. Shadow Tag allows Gothitelle to set up freely if it switches into a Pokemon that can't hurt it.
    Metang was moved into RU because of a handful of people using it a lot. Gothitelle was move to BL because it was voted broken in UU, so they're not the same.

    Since I'm not a big UU player, I can't really say how much I agree or disagree with this ban. However, I can easily see it being a very understandable action. Having a Shadow Tag user who can trap whatever it wants and virtually guarantee a kill is a powerful thing, and IIRC, it let Gothitelle effortlessly clean out opposing threats to sweeps from Pokemon like Heracross and Mienshao.

  22. #1047
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak94 View Post
    Since I'm not a big UU player, I can't really say how much I agree or disagree with this ban. However, I can easily see it being a very understandable action. Having a Shadow Tag user who can trap whatever it wants and virtually guarantee a kill is a powerful thing, and IIRC, it let Gothitelle effortlessly clean out opposing threats to sweeps from Pokemon like Heracross and Mienshao.
    Then why not just ban Shadow Tag in a certain tier (and consequently, all tiers below that tier)? :/





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  23. #1048

    Default

    What would be the point? Eviolite Gothorita and Wynaut aren't broken with it. That would also automatically disqualify Shadow Tag Chandelure when it's released even though we haven't had a chance to test it (although I wouldn't doubt its brokenness). Besides, banning Shadow Tag to keep Gothitelle in UU without it (and subsequently Wobbafett as well) would have no positive impact on the UU metagame whatsoever since no one would use either without Shadow Tag.

  24. #1049
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Parilia City
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesusfreak94 View Post
    What would be the point? Eviolite Gothorita and Wynaut aren't broken with it. That would also automatically disqualify Shadow Tag Chandelure when it's released even though we haven't had a chance to test it (although I wouldn't doubt its brokenness). Besides, banning Shadow Tag to keep Gothitelle in UU without it (and subsequently Wobbafett as well) would have no positive impact on the UU metagame whatsoever since no one would use either without Shadow Tag.
    Wobbuffet wasn't really broken in DPP's OU metagame either, was it? :/
    What made Wobbuffet stay in DPP ubers?





    [IMG]http://i49.*******.com/2h6dobp.png[/IMG]

  25. #1050

    Default

    Yes, Wobbafett was banned from DPPt OU. You'll have to ask someone else about when that was, though, since I think I started playing after its ban.

    But even if it wasn't, what happened in the DPPt metagame is ultimately irrelevant to the decisions made in the BW metagame.

Page 42 of 52 FirstFirst ... 32383940414243444546 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •