Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xXBlu3BreathXx

  • Birthday May 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    England is my city
  • IGN

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    Chicken Burger

Recent Profile Visitors

6961 profile views
  1. Lmao imagine baby raging after some slight shit talk. Get some thicker skin so next time you don’t prance around as if you are royalty.
  2. Thank you coolio, sorry we had to put you through all of this.
  3. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha nice joke, you think that we should be subbing out a player when he showed up to his match, my 2nd pick player at that. Anyways, I’m pissed don’t take me personally. Julian and ghost agreed to play on the weekend, preferably around 4pm Sunday. Julian waited about 5 hours before ghost showed up, next they both consent to play when a forum post is made. Now we all know that was a lie but the important distinction here is that Julian waited about an hour after the time both parties agreed upon (even after waiting a long time for ghost to show). You cannot blame Julian for logging off as he went the extra mile to play the match and had to wake up early in the morning. On the other hand the opposing team made very little effort to make a substitution, not even reaching out to look for an extension, clearly afraid of Julian and making a substitution well after his availability period. I want to make this very clear. Them playing dumb was there best option to fish for a win, both a no contest and extension would favour them so might as well see if you can win the week for free, right? Please reconsider the decision, both parties did not go to similar lengths to get the match played. An extension would be the proper way to handle a situation like this.
  4. Manager: @xXBlu3BreathXx Captains: Lkrenz + Forfiter Players: Shoutout to Rendi for the banner.
  5. Outrage selects a random target in doubles so it has never seen much vgc usage.
  6. Its almost as if they waited for team preview to release illusion.
  7. Yeah that reason was probably because Conk was too slow in BWs metagame as it was plagued with weather wars, which Conk generally cannot deal with. The reason this problem was never introduced was because Smogon had access to legendary mons (mainly psychics like mew and jirachi) that could confidently switch into it and the introduction of fairy type later on. You seem to look at Smogons word as law, Smogon may have started the groundwork for competitive pokemon but in no way should any of their metagames be used to define a Pokemon as broken or not because of one of Smogons metagames said so. Previously in mmo Snorlax was banned twice, once with only a complex ban on curse and another flat out ban. Guts is currently preferred over sheer force because you can run flame orb to 1hko or 2hko any mon in the tier, yes I meant OU and not anything from lower tiers, the fact you would have to use a specific Pokemon to counter something just demonstrates how oppressive it is. You would require the right moveset (and prediction) obviously but that is the main issue, should a Pokemon be allowed to have such a huge threat to your team that you sac one or two of your potential switch ins to just to find out what set it is? Conk can run 3 main sets atm: Sheer Force Orb, Guts Leftovers and Guts Flame Orb. The coverage is up to the player but having to switch to a counter to all 3 of these sets is beyond ridiculous. Lets look at a realistic example: Player 1 has Conk and Player 2 has Chansey out, they have two options Gliscor or Starmie, Player 1 uses Ice Punch while Player 2 switches to Gliscor expecting a Thunder Punch and dies. Even if Conk had attacked the Starmie he would have still chipped it, if Starmie was offensive then Conk has already won, if not sure Conk is walled by that Starmie but Player 1 most definitely has some form to combat Starmie like a pursuit trapper or Ferrothorn. Currently only the tier council make decisions, this is just a thread to openly voice ones opinion.
  8. I'm not entirely sure what you would define as a "fair outcome", I presume you want some sort of penalty system to not prolong tournaments, which is fair enough. However, I do not believe it is fair to discourage play styles (in this case stall) as every player is different, it would be like forcing someone to change their fitness routine when the one they have already been using has had great success. Altough not common, some games come down to pp (power point) stalling the opponent, say somebody wanted to use Dusclops in a tournament to make use of the ability Pressure, they would not be able to with this clause active. Dusclops can only be fully utilized on a stall team and with it being so passive it would contribute next to no damage dealt and constantly rack up damage, thus making you more likely to lose if timeout occurs. Now this is only one example but I'm sure there are others out there. Right now I believe it would be best to keep tournaments how they were previously, I don't think eliminating players by time is fair, as gb put it somebody could have lost even though they were in an advantageous position.
  9. If you are unaware the most recent patch put forward a drastic change to tournaments, in which the player which dealt the most damage after a 60 minute time frame wins the duel. This greatly hampers team building strategies, it pretty much comes down to a coin toss if you have a stall vs stall matchup, this should not determine who progresses onto the next round. This is definitely not healthy to pretty much discourage a style of play, although the scenario is unlikely that a game goes on for over an hour any dedicated tournament player would probably wait for their next duel. Please I ask of whoever is in charge of this to reverse this decision.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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