Rache

I understood. The issue is that not all mons that have Levitate only have Levitate, so seeing a warning tells you that the one you're facing has Levitate instead of one of their other possible abilities. Bronzong for example has Levitate, Heatproof, and Heavy Metal to choose from. Most users of Water Absorb and other similar abilities also have alternatives. The suggestion doesn't really work with this drawback unfortunately. While we could display it only for species with a single ability, doing so would be confusing in a different/worse way.

We decided against this as some species with access to abilities that grant them immunities aren't locked into those abilities. Displaying ability-based type effectiveness indicators would leak build info for some species that you would otherwise only figure out by trying to use those moves against them.

This is normal, some Trainer Tower trainers always have shinies.

I'd say that this is actually more effective with the restriction in place as you can still lose if your strategy isn't very good. The limit forces you to use your problem solving skills to pick the right amounts of the right items at the right times to maximize your advantage, relying on your team synergy for what your bag can't do. It requires some amount of skill rather than brute force, which is the goal. Potions are equally problematic if left unrestricted, especially in combination with stat boosts. Only limiting Revives doesn't resolve the issue. PP stalling is a legitimate strategy that isn't necessarily reliant on bag items and is often done without them, it's extremely undesirable to kill it off. Bag items are generic options that every team benefits from, we're going to have to disagree. It's double what any NPC trainer has, so was chosen as a middle ground of sorts between the previous mechanics and enforcing a fair fight with the same amount of items. You retain a significant advantage at 4 without it being excessive.

It's needlessly complicated and feels worse when the crutch is taken away later on when it's wanted the most. The number of remaining items you have available is displayed on the bag button at all times during trainer battles. It may not be seen immediately, but NPCs and signs are much easier to ignore. There's very little "grinding for the sake of grinding" during the storyline unless you're rushing through and skipping all of the optional trainers. A well balanced team should be able to proceed through the majority of the game without battling any wild mons or rematches. Severely underleveled teams can progress if you play them well, but will have a harder time. There's almost always an item-based solution that makes good teambuilding and smart play optional. In this example, you have a few options: 1: Revive something that actually can take the hit and use its turns to Revive multiple other party members. Revive that mon again when it faints then repeat. 2: X Defend or X Sp.Def can allow less bulky mons to survive and make progress. X item > Potion > attack or Revive something else > Potion > attack > Potion. 3: Use Potions or Revives until the opponent either misses or runs out of PP on their most dangerous move. The restriction ensures that you instead need to think about which items to use and when to use them. - Overall, the game has been rebalanced for its older audience and is intended to be reasonably challenging compared to the originals. Bag items are powerful enough that leaving them unlimited (or making the limit so high that it doesn't actually matter) trivializes the difficulty by giving you an easy solution that works for every problem. A difficulty curve that forces inexperienced players to get better at the game to proceed is important to prevent the postgame from being too jarring of a difficulty spike. Many of the skills picked up along the way can also be applied when learning PvP.

The 4 item limit was implemented to make trainer battles more fair, forcing players to come back with a better strategy or stronger team if they can't win without excessively chugging potions. It's okay to lose if you're under-prepared or play a fight poorly, the overall goal of the change is to make you better at the game after you've beaten the storyline than you were when you started to ease the transition into harder postgame content and/or PvP. Most important storyline trainers have 1-2 healing items and never have Revives or X items, so you still have a significant advantage over them with the current limit. The restriction makes self-healing moves more valuable as well where previously you might disregard them for being worse than bag items. Item cheese is okay to an extent, but it becomes too big of a crutch if it's not restricted enough. We believe that 4 is a suitable limit. Buying something with a type advantage or something generically good means that you've identified an effective solution to your problem instead of trying to brute force it with bag items. The willingness to change your team to overcome a fight that you're struggling with isn't a bad thing and can be helpful if you stick around after the storyline. A lot of the harder postgame challenges call for thoughtful teambuilding tailored to those fights instead of using the same 6 for everything. The Halloween boss is entirely built around consumables (with no limit), but this is only effective because it's a triple battle where multiple mons can faint in a single turn and the boss can heal off any damage it takes if you're not playing aggressively. You actually can be put into a situation where infinite items don't ensure a victory in this context. Healing items in this series are extremely powerful in single battles however as you typically don't lose any ground by using them while your opponent is still expending resources every turn. If you can attack between items, you're progressing the fight directly as well. If you're not able to, X items can change that. Pursuit gains priority and doubles in power if the target is switching out. Healing items have never been a particularly big sink, even when they were unrestricted. Catching, breeding, and listing fees remove a large amount of money from the economy.

PvP decisions like this are largely left to the tier council, who are not currently aiming for a ban on any of these. A strategy being powerful doesn't necessarily mean that it's broken, but you're welcome to try to convince them otherwise here. When this was previously brought up with them, they believed that it would overall have a negative impact on the metagame. We trust their judgement so won't be implementing it unless they change their minds. If the tier council has voted to banish a species to ubers, a decision is reached between the tier council and myself (if mechanical changes are involved or new HAs etc are requested) regarding how to resolve the issue to re-enable the species for OU. The goal in these cases is to retain as much viability as possible. Hypothetically if Wish + Teleport + Chansey were a broken combination, I'd assume that the outcome would be either Wish or Teleport complex banned on it as it's a much simpler ruling for players to understand than a combination of two moves being disallowed. Chansey hasn't been a serious topic of discussion in quite some time though, as far as I'm aware it's not a concern right now.

We include as many canon moves for each species as we can within a gen 5 environment. This is why gen 1-2 event moves and PoGo-only moves are available despite not being obtainable in the most recent mainline games, as well as moves that were stripped from learnsets or entirely removed over the generations. If it was canon at any point and the move exists in gen 5, the default is inclusion. Sometimes canon moves need to be taken away for balancing reasons however, most notably Fissure Machamp due to its No Guard ability. Previously this also included moves that resulted in a species being sent to ubers, although we've recently changed our approach for these ones to complex ban the moves instead to allow them in PvE and doubles. We can add or remove anything we want to, but we believe that this is the best way to handle learnsets at this time.

The reason that we don't allow permanent ownership of "uber" legendaries like Zekrom is the impact they would have on difficulty balancing. Some legendaries are so powerful that they would warp the game around themselves, and banning them from PvP would not resolve this at all. When it comes to the most difficult postgame content, PokeMMO is a strategy game in disguise. You have hundreds of options to choose from which bring something unique to teams built to handle that difficult content. Choice is emphasized and important as each mon is better at some things and worse at others, giving you a reason to prepare and use different teams in different situations. If content difficulty is balanced under the assumption that players are all using the strongest legendaries, it becomes too difficult for players who don't have them. If it's not balanced around them, it becomes too easy for players who do. Both of these outcomes are extremely negative for the game as it strips away the value of choice. You would always auto-include them to play anything optimally.

Banned characters are the ones whose names never become available again. If a character is simply deleted or changes its name to something else (this seems to be what happened in your case?), its old name becomes available for anyone else to use. You can't get it back if it isn't yours anymore.

The character holding the name you wanted wasn't on a banned account. If it was renamed or deleted (either by you or automatically in a wipe at some point due to little or no playtime or assets), the name was freed for someone else to claim. The answer you're responding to was in regards to banned characters, whose names never become available again.

You received 50m from a Chinese RMT vendor on 27-03-2024 and another 20m from a completely different Chinese RMT vendor on 01-04-2024, both of whom were funneling money from bots to customers. We deal with a lot of them, we know what they look like. Some of the other customers banned alongside you (from a variety of countries and languages) have also admitted to purchasing in-game currency from them, or have received additional "gifts" from other vendor accounts. We don't ban players for simply receiving gifts, even large ones. The circumstances around those gifts are the important part, and although we may not be able to dive into your bank history, we have no reason to believe these trades were legitimate. Attempting to mislead other players here won't help your cause, you simply got caught.

We chose to allow duplicate legendaries because restricting ownership to only one would be arbitrary and would make the game worse instead of better. Most of these species are competitively important and versatile to an extent that warrants the ability to own multiple of them to fulfill different roles. With regards to the lore: Each legendary canonically exists in many different regions across many different games. The Kanto birds can be caught repeatedly in a single save of Let's Go. Several others have been confirmed to exist in multiples in the anime, including the Johto beasts. Legendaries appear in the various Battle Frontiers + Battle Subway. There are multiple of each per location and with varying (canon) natures, they can't all be the same one. The link posted above by @Akshit is also a good reference. This all demonstrates that most minor legendaries aren't actually one of a kind, so we're simply treating them as extremely rare species. We don't intend to change this stance.

It doesn't have a full set of walking sprites, so no. Even if this weren't the case, one of the benefits of the current follower implementation is its ability to motivate other players. Seeing someone with a rare and impressive shiny or obtainable legendary is often a reason that a player might choose to hunt for their own, which they can then show off with pride themselves. Rare and special followers mean something to other players due to the immense amount of effort put into obtaining them. For that reason (among many others), I'm really not a fan of the idea of equipping followers that you don't actually own, especially when it's something as big and flashy as an uber legendary with a lot of lore behind it.

Allowing permanent ownership of something as powerful as Zekrom would be unhealthy for the game. It would immediately be banned from competitive play and would be extremely dominant in PvE settings too. It's quite a bit stronger than the other legendaries and mythicals that have been released thus far.

We consider suitability for OU to be a good indicator of whether a species is suitable for the game at all. If a legendary is too overwhelming for the tier containing the best regular mons, that legendary is also extremely likely to outcompete them in PvE. In a game which heavily emphasizes team customization, balance between options is important to allow players to effectively utilize a variety of them. When uber legendaries are almost always the best in their roles or good enough generalists to compensate for a lack of specialization, there is little reason to use anything else once you've got them. We're willing to make some minor concessions for doubles when a single move is the issue with an otherwise reasonable OU mon (and that move doesn't break it in PvE), but introducing something new that is immediately and forever banished from standard OU play is a balancing failure which indicates that it shouldn't have been implemented. Many uber legendaries would be banworthy in the current doubles format too. I'm not a fan of arbitrary restrictions on where and how you can use something that otherwise behaves like everything else you own, it isn't good game design. If we ever make uber legendaries available, it will likely be temporary ownership rather than allowing them to be permanently kept. We'd prefer to avoid base stat modification as their battle performance is a large part of their identity. It's also confusing when they don't live up to a player's expectations when using or facing them. Being unable to withstand a powerful super effective attack really doesn't mean anything. 252+ Atk Choice Band Beedrill X-Scissor vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Mewtwo: 366-432 (103.6 - 122.3%) -- guaranteed OHKO

Raids may be the obtainment method for some legendaries in the future. For which ones, you'll have to wait and see.

Mach Punch has priority.

Although possible, it isn't good design to permanently give you something that you can't meaningfully use. We might consider Shaymin-Sky for PvE (and maybe doubles) at some point as you can re-enable it for OU by reverting it to its base form. We'd prefer not to implement entire species that will instantly and forever be banned from singles PvP though.

The issue with implementing the strongest legendaries in a permanent form is the impact they'll have on PvE, not PvP. We can ban overpowered species from competitive play, but can't (reasonably) ban them from the rest of the game after making them available for capture.

It's a package deal with Latios, which is threatening enough that it would be unwise to drop them before the other legendaries and HA mons with positive matchups against them have been introduced to the tier. Both will likely come someday (with close monitoring in PvP) but it's unlikely that it will be soon.

The legendaries we'll be allowing players to permanently obtain are the ones that are balanced enough for standard OU PvP. We don't intend to ever make "uber" legendaries obtainable in an unrestricted form as they would entirely warp the game around themselves. If content difficulty is balanced under the assumption that players are all using titans like Kyogre, it becomes too difficult for players who don't have access to them. If it's not balanced around them, it becomes too easy for players who do have them. Both outcomes force their usage on the vast majority of teams in order to play hard fights optimally. The possibility of an ubers tier isn't worth the damage their permanent availability would cause to the rest of the game, although we might consider temporary ownership of them sometime in the future. Speed Boost Blaziken may be on the table at some point with its ability banned in singles PvP due to the exceptions made for Draco Meteor Hydreigon and Swords Dance Garchomp to allow them in PvE and doubles. This isn't a guarantee though, it would only come after after extensive testing has been done to ensure that it doesn't affect PvE balancing in an undesirable way.

Signup requirements won't prevent people from bringing "bad" teams if they have the minimum amount of raid experience to join matchmaking, nor can we use team quality to filter people out due to how complex of a thing it is to evaluate in a game with so many options and interactions between options. It's a decent flying attacker with access to some interesting support moves though, sometimes you might be happy to see it in the hands of someone playing it to its strengths.

I'm having a bit of trouble deciphering your question, so I'll answer for the few different ways I'm interpreting it. If you're asking if PvP will be a requirement for raids, it won't be, nor will raids affect PvP rankings. If you're asking if raids will have their own ELO system, they won't. It isn't very desirable as it punishes players for the process of learning what a boss does by playing it themselves instead of spectating another group. Losing the first time then coming back with a better strategy is part of the intended gameplay for harder raids. If you're asking if you can join a raid in a manually formed link without meeting the requirements to enter matchmaking for that raid tier, you will be able to. The intention behind restricting matchmaking for harder raids is to remove the least experienced players from the pool, increasing the chance that random matchmaking groups enough stronger players together for them to have a decent chance of victory. Allowing newer raiders to attempt it with their friends in a manual link doesn't clash with this goal.