iJulian

You chose to display an example for your argument. Your flawed example instead exposed your flawed logic and view of the game. You go back and read the discussion you’ll also find a lot of arguments against. Which why I started by saying a vote should’ve been held instead of just having 6 people (2 dead) making the decision for everyone:

So staying to eat a draco to uturn out with gliscor was obviously the play chuck made because he wanted to preserve gliscor? I think as flawed as the build was chuck still had the mu. And he could’ve easily won without gliscor. plus, he doesn’t even lose if he stays to eq: EQ on the +2, EQ again on the +4. EQ one last time, eat the +4 hit, KO the chomp and live to roost/de fog on clops or reuni later or a locked mag later. If your team doesn’t have speed control you can’t just mess around and give a setup mon 10 free turns lmao it’ll obviously make it look broken. Yet again, it still only kod 2 mons. That’s just current TC for you.

It obviously wasn’t. But the fact that gb, who has been the most vocal voice in tc for the chomp van, chose that because it “displayed” his argument only shows how flawed both the arguments and his view of the metagame is. If he can’t look and team preview and assert threats and win cons why is he taking decisions on behalf of the entire player base?

?????? How do you not take into account team preview when assessing which mons are important in a match and which ones are not??? No wonder you think garchomp is broken. Trading gliscor for chomp turn 5 would not be an automatic loss in that scenario, even with the less than optimal build. The fact that you think that makes look the whole TC discussion and decision process look like a joke.

On the other hand, gb putting that game as an example is, ironically, an example of why tc is weak and 6 people alone shouldn’t be making those calls.

Are we watching the same team preview? gliscor is there FOR garchomp, dealing with it is its only job: Gliscor losses to reuni, losses to blissey, has a hard time switching on flash cannon (and chuck has blissey which beats mag all day anyways), dusclops beats it one on one and Mienshao is always better dealt with by Jellicent (because of the very real possibility of hp ice while grass knot fails to 2hko even physdef jelli) THIS RIGHT HERE IS SO FRUSTRATING AND IT PERFECTLY SHOWCASES MY POINT: How can a TC member watch that team preview and say "hurr durr gliscor is super important here" you my friend are missreading the game and taking decisions for all of us, to that I say: shame. So u-turning is better? that was a missread. no reason to play ahead of yourself that early in the match when you don't know the sets yet. if you wanted to preserve gliscor you'd hard switch to scout and not take a possible draco. It literally doesnt make a difference. to stop the volt turn with gliscor you need to make a read anyways, scarf flash cannon 2hkos you , specs has a chance to 0hko after just a bit of chip with rocks. mienshao threatens to ko with hp ice. 252 SpA Magnezone Flash Cannon vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Gliscor: 87-103 (47.8 - 56.5%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock 252 SpA Choice Specs Magnezone Flash Cannon vs. 252 HP / 0 SpD Gliscor: 129-153 (70.8 - 84%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock physdef gliscor is far away from being a stop to volturn in this scenario.

From team preview you can see that only blissey or chomp can be the rocks. turn 2 it's revealed. turn 3 it shows sd on gliscor's u-turn (Note: at this point garchomp is +0, gliscor chose to stay to u-turn . We also saw that +6 dclaw failed to ko gliscor. Had gliscor chosen to just spam eq instead it wouldv've easily won the 1v1) Also note: a) chucks team has no speed control b) I mentioned how this previous ou reminds me of newer gens ou c) running balance/offense without speed control in newer gens ou is simply a sin. bad teambuilding a + b + c -> With a better build, chuck would've u-turned or teleported out to scarf hydreigh and that would've been it. Chomp is forced out. and even THEN. while chomp got to +6 it only picked up 2 kos and it had to read its opponent thrice to do so (first, staying on gliscors uturn that couldve been an eq, toxic or icefang which would've ended the chomp, second, SDing up on the gliscor's full hp roost, and then EQ'ing gliscor while at +6 to catch the metagross switch in. if gliscor eq'd on either of those turns that was it, chomp is again, gone.) So, recapitulating: chomp faced a team with uturn + teleport but no speed control (bad) , got more or less a free +6 setup by outplaying its opponent not once not twice but three times and even after all of that it only managed to pick 2 kos. I dont think you could've chosen a better example to display why chomp is indeed, not broken. @gbwead @pachima @Munya These are the arguments of your TC LOL: Watch these finals where broken garchomp played vs a bad build, got 10 free turns and yet only managed to ko 2 mons (and to be fair, set up rocks) if anything the game proves their entirelly opposite point and they cant even see it. Give that many free turns to a magearna, kartana, kommomo-o or any of the countless threats gen7 has. Go ahead tell me how well that works out for you. Yet I dont see any smogon TC members using bad gameplay to argue for their bans. oh wait they're actually smart.

The finals that had 12 different mons? The one where garchomp was allowed to go +6 for (almost) free and still only picked up 2 kos vs the team with no speed control? Looks good to me.

I think it felt closer to what newer gens OU are: You simply cannot counter every set from every mon, and that is A-OKAY. it makes the metagames more versatile and interesting.

The whole concept of a 6 man TC where 1/3 of the members dont even play is a meme. Even if they did, such a controversial decision on the most played tier should under no ciurcumstances be taken by 6 people. It's all a meme at this point.

In addition to my previous post, which stands either way, Garchomp is particularly a difficult, divisive topic. There are a ton of oppions on either side of the argument. It should under NO circumstances be banned because of the votes of 3 smart people, gb and 2 dead guys. What's the point of having a renewed ladder? Using smogon as reference, controversial mons (like most recently cinderace/magearna) are put on the spotlight by the coincil and then it is the playerbase who is allowed to vote. Make a system where the top 100 players of each tier are allowed to vote on the most devisive decisions that concern them. It is that simple. @Kyu

Can anyone explain to me how garchomp got banned in the span from Friday to Sunday (3 days!) when it was barely discussed??? EDIT: @Munya TC is a joke and it needs a reform NOW. It blows my mind that Zebra and Tyrone are allowed to make decisions on a game they haven’t played in years. Another 2 members quit in the past 2 months. Even then, 6 players are NOT enough to make such calls. I know that myself and others have been trying to join for a few months yet you seem to prefer keeping the smallest council ever where 1/3 of the members basically haven’t played Pokémon since generation 3 lmao. (And tbh it’s not like they were ever that good anyways).

wait I just realized.. why is this thing the same day as G2 vs Fnatic and TSM vs C9? ;-;

You shouldve kept playing smh. You can still make it in the last 3 slots I think. also thanks fam. On a side note, @Imabetheverybest1 it might be a good idea to open space for a few reserves aswell

xd

Blue is 18-0 in dubs, #37. Beats the #21 guy in 21 turns. Gets 2 points. XD

The new changes to tournaments spectator mode are great! honestly it would be great if it worked in matchmaking too @Kyu

Once a new patch arrives you can no longer watch replays from the previous ones. You’ll just have to wait to watch replays of more recent tournaments.

Even if this is the case, it would still be pretty easy to dodge one or two players/teammates/friends/threats But besides that, I want to raise a point I feel is very important and hasn’t been mentioned yet: there is no way to balance that minimum number you talked about without making the tournament considerably longer. If the number is too big, say 50%. Then you have a much more random bracket but you have to wait till half the matches are done to start the next round which would obviously delay the tournament a lot If the number is low (say 4 or 2 people) then not only the system becomes less random and even exploitable but it also means that the system would end up matching together the last people to finish their matches every round. This could very easily result in stall vs stall scenarios and god forbid the tournament length at this point. On the flip side to point #2 the people finishing their matches the soonest would also get paired together. This way, it is very possible that if you play HO you’ll end up playing more HO and as I already exemplified, stall would be more likely to play stall. This not only reduces diversity and increases the tournament length but it is very easy to see how it would be more common to see a bracket with a dude sitting in the finals waiting for a r3 match to eventually end. Think of an UU tournament for instance. And for simplicity sake say 50% of the people play screens and 50% play stall. most likely than not, the screens matches would end sooner and they would end up being matched together in one half of the bracket, while the stall matches would end later and the same would happen on the second half. At this point anyone could appreciate how this quickly becomes very problematic. EDIT: This indeed seems to be the case. For those seeking further information on how the system works, I remembered I read kyu saying something about it a couple weeks ago. I found it:

Oh, you mean like everything you’ve said so far. Got it. It’s pretty simple actually; in ou: 1 stall, 1 balance, 1 rain, 1 ho. Done. Blind tournaments is in no way any more competitive than random laddering. Tournaments are supposed to have a higher standard.

As is tradition. Meanwhile gb goes "its lame git gut" xd. One is tc, the other is not, but it's not the way you'd think.

You'll get to spectate better duels watching high mmr matchmaking instead and you can do that 24/7. Tournaments add into acouguu an additional set of skills which you cant find in random matchmaking this update takes away.

If your 3 teams are diverse they wont have similar weaknesses lmao thats the definition of "diverse". pick up a dictionary please becase thats the second word i've had to explain to you in as many pages. This is an mmo and people playing this game are commited to that concept. You're very welcome to go to showdown instead if you want unlimited resources so badly. I was just using my own case as an example. You can win with limited resourses. Ofcourse it is a slight disadventage but ffs this is an mmo. Go ahead try to join world of warcraft in 2020 and try competing with the people that have been playing for 20 years. Not having all champions in league of legends is also a disadventage in ranked and that doesnt mean riot should make them free. Games are based on resourses, simulators are not. You're the one who should stop being delusional.

The current system feels like a "Win 5 consecutive rounds of matchmaking at 5pm GMT+0 to win 500rp and qualify for an actual 2 round (semis, finals) tournament for 500 extra rp and a comp" kind of event rather than you know, an actual tournament.

“Huge competitive cost” all you really need is 2 or 3 well built, diverse teams. If new players can’t meet those standards they should stay content with getting to round 3 or go back to matchmaking/grinding. Even then, the first shiny tournament I won I spammed a single team Doc lent me. I rarely play CCs but when I do I don’t bother playing more than 2 teams and I’ve won plenty. So yeah, it’s not impossible to win with limited resources. Allow me to quote yourself: “Get good”.