NikhilR

1) Conkeldurr has Guts as its ability, which instead allows a status of burn to increase its attack rather than decrease it 2) Not every Gengar runs Hex

This is one ingenious poster, props to whoever created it.

First round or win it all!

So I'm currently playing in a draft-system tour that is hosted on a separate simulator. How it works is that you have 90 points, and you can draft minimum of 6 mons. Each mon will have a points value attached to it, like this in this pic: https://i.imgur.com/KPICR5e.jpg You could probably do a draft system for OU / UU / NU where it will be a 3-player team and players having the option to rotate tiers.

This is what appears for me Oh I didn't mean it like that, but I just think that there is a huge difference in the amount of time you need to spend in this game to earn the same amount that you could through working a few hours irl, and because there is this huge difference, it would be much more profitable to buy RP rather than grind through the ladder. It shouldn't be almost equal to a paid job, but at the same time it shouldn't be so far off.

I quickly edited it. You were too fast to respond.

The rewards are not worth it at all. You can use the money you earn by working 3 hours of a minimum wage job to buy RP to get the same or more amount money than what you could get by grinding the ladder for a much more significant period of time. Gb mentions that you can earn 2m by winning 60-80 duels. Giving him the benefit of the doubt in two scenarios - having to win just 60 duels and you playing + winning all your duels, in other words you play 60 games and win those 60 games - you still spend roughly 10 hours (assuming each game is 10 min) to acquire wealth of 2m. Why spend 10 hours to acquire something when you can get it in probably 3 hours-ish. The rewards are terrible.

Maybe you guys should suggest to the devs to implement a feature that allows a game to be restarted or recreated from a certain point. It won't help with this current PSL but it could help down the road. As far as the DC rules here go, I think asking all players to submit their teams prior to the game could help prevent exploitation, especially in games that have had a short number of turns played. All they have to do is encrypt their team on a site like cryptobin.co, and send the host a link to the file prior to the game. The teams will still be encrypted, so it's not like the host can leak someone's team. If a DC does happen, the host can then ask for the players who submitted the encrypted links to then provide the password to decrypt it. If you DC and don't submit your team, you lose. I'm not sure what should happen in a scenario where if you DC and submit your team but your opp doesn't, but this could be a starting point.

Maybe banning Mach Punch on it or preventing it from running Flame Orb. Removing Mach Punch on Conk makes it easier to be revenge killed. If you stop Conk from using Flame Orb, it could still activate Guts by using Toxic Orb but at the cost of an increased 6% chip per turn.

Please add a disclaimer that you are not responsible for your customers' pokemon incase you get banned

I would sell my NUs if I were you guys. I think Roserade being a problem for NU was argued months ago, and based off of the comments of everyone, it still is. My best argument for it right now is one of those "I know it when I see it" situations. The reason that that's my best argument is because I believe that the language or rule that Senile put forward for what is deemed to be "offensive uber" is outdated. It is outdated because the language back then applied to a metagame that is vastly different from what we have now. Because the language is also outdated, it's very hard to convince someone of why a certain pokemon is banworthy since there is no intelligible principle one can follow to convince the other of why a mon is banworthy. People's criteria for whether something is banworthy changes depending on the mon, and so there should be a revamp of the Tier Policies that looks at what possible ways a mon can be banworthy. There are so many factors to consider if something could be banworthy: 1) Its ability to constantly come in and pick up a kill 2) Its ability to be punished after picking up a kill 3) The ease with which it can set up, and potentially sweep. 4) The lack of available counters / checks 5) The ability of the pokemon to invalidate a certain playstyle 6) The base stats + ability of the pokemon if it enables it to be stronger than without that ability 7) While this may not be dispositive, usage and winrate is something that could be looked into. 8) The impact of the pokemon on the meta such that players start using certain answers to deal with that pokemon and these players probably would not use these answers in the meta if not for said pokemon

If only we could somehow tie the uncompetitiveness of quick claw with the economy :(

What is the point in learning something if you cannot use what you have learnt to benefit you?

But that is not the issue at hand. It's not about how often people use quick claw or how often it works; it's that the very fact it is being used just adds another element to this game that competitive players cannot control.

What difference does it make if you know which mon is holding the quick claw when you can't control the outcome?

Willing to bet 100k each on the bolded. OU2: Frags - Yosoyarca Dubs: Titoooo - Rendi - Taken by Moi M-OU: ZacMorales - Kiwikidd - Taken by Moi Dubs: Superman - IJulianFNT UU: TohnR - Umbramol M-NU: SweetForU - Aerun OU1: Lunarck - Darker

1) There is a Baton Pass clause even listed under the PvP, that was heavily discussed in the Comp Alley because of its impact on PvP. I don't recall there being one specific abuser of Baton Pass that made the entire move warranty of being banned, but just that it was in general uncompetitive. I think the TC played a role in having it banned, which is why even though Baton Pass strictly had nothing to do with tiering, it still fell under your purview. I could be wrong about this because it's been so many years ago, but do correct me if I'm wrong. 2) I don't think these items should be viewed from a "Tiering" perspective because our characteristics for something being banworthy : 1) Offensive 2) Defensive 3) Support, usually apply to Pokemon. There should probably be a separate criteria for items / moves / abilities that are inherently uncompetitive. The issue isn't about how often can these items make you win or lose, it's about how these items add an unnecessary amount of RNG to the game. I am quoting language below from the PokeMMO list of clauses thread: "Clauses are several standard rules that can be used in a match. They serve to stop overpowered strategies, reduce the amount of RNG and make the game more enjoyable overall." The language in the quote is the standard by which we should look at Quick Claw / Kings Rock. Baton Pass also falls under such language because it is an overpowered strategy. I just think the Tier Council should apply tiering principles to Pokemon, and have a different set of principles for items / abilities / strategies.

Those items fall within one of the PvP clauses, so while it isn't specifically a tiering decision, it does have an overlap with the purpose of the TC to make competitive play more balanced (just not through tier modification). I don't know why the comp community wasn't even consulted regarding such a change. It'd be nice if someone could channel their inner Karen and ask to speak to the manager about why such a change took place. The evasion clause banned moves like Double Team or Minimize that constantly boosted a pokemon's evasion to such a point that it could always dodge an attack. Items like Brightpowder give the holder a fixed chance of dodging an attack (10% chance to dodge a 100% accuracy move) so they aren't egregiously bad.

Show me the different ways you'd go about nullifying the opponent's Quick Claw without potentially costing you the game or putting you at a significant disadvantage otherwise. No it's not. I'm listing out the different ways you can deal with status that wouldn't be so costly. Burn + Poisoning + Paralysis + Freeze - Dealt by Lum Berry / Heal Bell / Aromatherapy / NC user Burn + Poisoning + Paralysis - Dealt by Rest Burn + Poisoning - Dealt by Magic Guard Freeze - Dealt with by Scald Burn - Dealt with by fire types Poison - Dealt with by Steel and grass types Now do the same with Quick Claw.

Your statement is contradictory. If you say it does not always take effect, then that means there are certain instances where it would take effect, which basically means the match is left to chance. Since neither I nor my opp is in control of the outcome, the game is always left to chance. Yes, and that would be stupid. Please show me the math you used to debunk my idealogy.

Yes, there is a reason for removing quick claw even if it does not allow the holder to move first - it does nothing but promote luck over skill. The entire premise behind creating a competitive environment was to foster the skillful strategies that Gamefreak offered us while at the same time not being held down by the luck-based elements that Gamefreak created as well. You sound like someone who has zero competitive experience, so let me inform you that we have clauses in PvP here. You can find a list of clauses in this thread: Some of these clauses would literally turn pokemon battles into a coinflip or just incredibly stupid battles, like if we didn't have sleep clause, evasion clause etc. In order to make the game more "fair" we have these clauses. You are not wrong regarding the part I bolded, but what you're missing is that Quick Claw's traditional function is in and of itself problematic. Quick Claw was once one of the items that was banned under the "Hax Items" clause that was listed in the thread because of its inherently luck-based feature, but it was then brought back, which is why this thread was created. Maybe you should realize that you're the one in the dark. There is a logical foundation for this change and I've explained it in the first post of my thread as well. The entire purpose of the suggestion box is to "bother" devs with potentially meaningful changes and it's a win-win situation because the changes we suggest would make us want to play the game more and that aligns with the devs' goals of wanting to maintain its existing playerbase. You're not the devs' spokesperson so I have no idea why you want to label someone's suggestion as "wasting the devs' time." None of us have the ability to stop someone else from using the item, hence why we're complaining about it. Why don't you show us the way then? In fact, why don't you choose a date and time of your convenience to challenge me to a game and if you beat me, I will listen to you. If there are much smarter + experienced competitive players that haven't figured out a way to counter quick-claw users, then you can see why I'd have difficulty in just taking your statement at face value. It's simply a dressed-up version of "Get good". So I'm giving you this opportunity of showing me how I can be a better player at a date and time of your choosing (you can PM me this if you wish). If you win, I'm all ears as to your strategy on how to beat quick-claw users. I can also provide you with a detailed battle-like scenario of why the item is problematic, but it'd be much better if I tried explaining this to you in practice. The reason we don't ban around every single thing that is luck-based is because 1) it would change the entire meaning of actually playing Pokemon because there are some luck-based elements we shouldn't remove and 2) not every randomisation takes away from player autonomy. I'm just going to focus on the last point because that is what is most important. If a pokemon is using Scald with 30% chance to burn, you can switch in your Natural Cure user to absorb the burn, a Magic Guard pokemon to absorb the burn, you can equip your pokemon with items like Lum Berry to heal the burn, or run moves such as Heal Bell or Aromatherapy to heal the burn. In other words, there is some control over these luck-based elements such that even if they do arise, there is a way to counter it or deal with it. The same goes with flinching. Rock Slide has a 30% chance to flinch, but the only way you will be flinching something is if you are slower than the rock-slide user. So we can avoid being flinched as long as our pokemon is faster than the rock-slide user, or run rock-resists such that even if flinches do occur, then it isn't game-changing. To repeat again, even though Rock Slide has the chance to flinch, I still have reasonable control over my choices in order to be prepared against it. This does not happen with Quick Claw users. Sometimes it is impossible to live an attack from a strong boosted pokemon, and so the only way to beat it is by outspeeding and killing it first. If your only, but reliable, way of defeating a +2 Rhyperior is by using a Surf Starmie, and it uses Quick Claw and attacks first, you then proceed to lose the game. You have no absolutely no control over this because you cannot pick and choose when Quick Claw will trigger, and you have no reasonable way to prepare for it. Simply put, my entire strategy was nullified by something that I have zero control over. This is why Quick Claw is problematic.

I strongly disagree with your reply to Daryl's suggestion. 1) Daryl did not mention that quick claw allows the user to go first. He even mentioned Quick Claw as an "rng" item, which stands for random number generator, in other words it isn't static. The randomness associated with Quick Claw prevents one from properly strategizing during the game play. 2) Daryl did not mention that King's Rock should be eliminated from the game. If you read carefully, he mentioned that whoever in charge was idiotic for unbanning these items, key word being there "unbanning" which means they were once banned from PvP but not for other purposes. 3) If you don't have any competitive credentials then you should try to stay in your lane and maybe give advice to players on how to play rock-paper-scissors, snakes and ladders or anything else in that area. Simply put, I think you should stop posting in threads that are comp-related and also read the OP's suggestion three or four times before replying so that I don't have to make these kinds of posts.

Why don't we also allow items like brightpowder to be unbanned and ohko moves to be unbanned? The accuracy of attacks against a Brightpowder holder is 0.9x. In other words, if you use a 100% accuracy move against a Brightpowder holder, you will hit 90% of the time. Will people trade a 10% or slightly higher chance to dodge an attack over a good item like Eviolite, Life Orb, Leftovers, Choice Item, Scope Lens? Ohko moves have like a 30% accuracy and given that competitive MMO players love accuracy so much more over power (like choosing to run flamethrower over fire blast, aura sphere over focus blast), why not let players who ladder have access to both? Will people choose to trade a 30% chance of potentially ohko-ing an opponent (I said potentially because moves like fissure does not hit flying or levitate pokemon, or ohko pokemon with sturdy ability or pokemon holding focus sash), or will players prefer a 100% chance of potentially 2-3 hko-ing their opp? The concept of fun is very subjective because losing to luck is usually never ever fun. Some people have fun when they win with luck, and others may feel bad. Have you ever encountered a player who has had fun while getting lucked? The game as it is makes players "comp-ready" with how they have made the storyline NPCs harder, and items like choice band or choice scarf are like 100k or lower, and so it's not like players will not have access to those items by the time they are ready to ladder. They simply choose to run these items with the purpose of winning with luck, and that is a very unhealthy mindset to encourage.

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be in most of your shoes, but it will never surprise me that some people won't admit that they dropped the ball with this by letting these items back in the first place. It's also not surprising that the moment you introduce any element of luck into this game, that there will be a few who are willing to exploit it to its fullest (for example how Wobba-Rain was spammed). There is hardly any utility in bringing back these items, and if there were any, its utility is heavily outweighed by the negative aspects it brings. The only utility it can serve is by possibly making some sets more viable, but at the expense of completely negating another player's already well-built team. I've seen games where a Cloyster is able to beat a +2 Physical Defense boosted Reuniclus just by flinching its way through with Kings Rock. Just because these items weren't banned in Smogon, doesn't mean that they should've been unbanned here in MMO. One possible reason as to why it wasn't banned in Smogon is because these luck-based items are rarely used. The reason for their lack of usage is because there is a stigma associated with running cheap strategies like this, and it's one of the best ways for someone to overlook your skill level and thereby not get picked for a team tournament. Players there are on a higher skill-level and most have respect for the game to not settle down for such strats. The reason its usage is picking up here in MMO is because rather than educating newer players on how to get better by properly playing the game in order to reduce the skill-gap between themselves and a higher skilled player, the ability to use these luck-based items is a quick-fix in reducing that gap because you can skip the "playing better part to the "victory" part. Players here also don't suffer any form or backlash or repercussion for running such strategies other than losing a few points on the ladder. These very same players are probably ones who ladder casually and have nothing to lose while the hard-working players lose valuable time spent in grinding / teambuilding / playing to get better. Re-introducing these items simply added more external factors into a game that we cannot control and we already had enough of that as is.

And like I told you earlier, it is not necessary that Relaxed Skarm with 0 speed IV will always Roost first because in practice Conks run speed to outspeed Hippowdon and to speed creep other opposing Conks. 31 IV Speed Hippowdon speed ties with Relaxed Skarm with 0 speed IV, so if Conkeldurr wants to outspeed Hippo, it will always outspeed Relaxed Skarm. If outspeeding Hippo isn't enough, players may also run speed evs to outspeed opposing Flame Orb Conks, so most players will invest a minimum of 20 speed EVs so as to kill 2 birds with one stone.