Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


gbwead last won the day on January 29

gbwead had the most liked content!

About gbwead

  • Birthday 10/20/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • IGN

Recent Profile Visitors

17229 profile views

gbwead's Achievements

  1. Can someone explain why I see "NU doesn't have good walls" as an argument supposedly in favor of an Electrode ban? Are walls a direct counter to Electrode? What's the deal with that? Is Blissey the ideal switch that prevent Electrode from doing its job? If no, what walls are you guys refering to?
  2. Why are you justifying Electrode being potentially banworthy based on your own comparision between tiers while invalidating "comparison between tiers" as a an overall argument in this discussion? "You can't compare because these things are different" And yet by using the word different you are making a comparison yourself. I'm sure not everyone agree with your comparison or the conclusions drawn from your comparison, that doesn't make their own views invalid in regard to yours.
  3. Electrode can set up screens with TAUNT and STATIC support!!!! SO SCARY!!! I'm going to have nightmares, please ban! My brain is not enough powerful to break through screens. What do walls have to do with Electrode anyways??!? Screens are used to set up vs things that would otherwise OHKO you. Alomomola is not going to OHKO with Toxic or Scald. Same thign with Golbat or Bronzor and nearly all walls. Walls are not designed to OHKO stuff. NU lack of decent walls is completly irrelevant in this matter. Who cares? Why on earth would you try to OHKO Electrode? Electrode does nothing. The only relevant Scarf users I can think of that can OHKO Electrode without the risk of static are Krook, Garchomp and Dugtrio. Are you suggesting that Electrode would be a problem if it wasn't for Krook in UU? Really? (PZ is BL) Screens are barely viable, not broken and not rng based. Why this huge push to prevent that playstyle from being viable? Stop banning things just become it's new territory. We also have tons of crit monsters in NU like Absol that have no problem whatsoever ignoring screens. We have Piloswine coming into Electrode and making fun of it. A scarf user like Rotom can simply trick in front of Electrode. Whimsicott with infiltrator or prankster fucks electrode as well. Even fucking Slowking can laughs in the face of Electrode, especially if it carries Teleport instead of an electric move (that would deal no dmg). Seriously, this is plain stupid. Use your heads instead of banning stuff you didn't spend more than half a second to play against.
  4. If the thread is opened, it's already a given that KR is going to get banned. The discussion is really just a formality. I'm glad that KR will be banned, but once again I fear for the precedent it will set if it gets banned for the wrong reason like INTENT which opens the door to so much non sense.
  5. If they want to add INTENT as a ban reason, they should update the tiering policy then,
  6. Waterfall is a move. KR is an item. The primary intent of a move vs an item is hardly comparable since an item has no other function or utility. Moves often have secondary effects. Items only have one function. Leftovers heals a specific amount of HP. Flame Orb burns the user. Items do not have secondary effects, they do not have secondary intent. So Primary Intent doesn't make sense for items since that is the only intent they have. Also, the wording secondary effect is very misleading. Sometimes people use scald because of the burn potential over the dmg it deals. When my empoleon spams Scald vs another Empoleon, my primary intent is to burn that Empoleon and the dmg I deal is secondary. Sometimes I want to Flinch with Waterfall, sometimes I want to do dmg with Waterfall, sometimes both. Secondary Intent =/= Secondary Effect. It depends on the game situation and on the players. What goes on in a players' head doesn't really matter and has never been used as a ban argument in PokeMMO. Let me give you some examples as to why primary intent is irrelevant. When I choose to play Flame Body Chandelure over Flash Fire, I'm trying to fish for RNG that's the primary intent, there is no other intention. I could play Flash Fire, but I choose to go for the RNG route. Does that mean Flame Body Chandelure should be banned based on intent alone? Ofc NOT. The intent is irrelevant. If I use Metronome on Ludicolo for the very unlikely chance of doing a Quiver Dance, that's my intent, but that doesn't make Metronome Ludicolo banworthy. If I use Magnitude instead of EQ for the 5% chance of doing a 150 bp ground move instead of a 100 bp ground move, that's the primary intent for that choice and once again the intent is utterly irrelevant. A burn from Flame Body depends on very specific conditions (contact move) / odds (30% chance) and a burn is usually not as detrimental as multiple chance to flinch. The odds of doing Quiver Dance with Ludicolo thanks to Metronome is so low compared to the high flinch chance of KR with Multi hit moves. The winning potential of Quiver Dance Ludicolo is probably not as great as +2 Cloyster with KR. The 5% chance of doing a 150 BP ground move from Magnitude is certainly not as good as the KR Flinch Potential on Cloyster. My point is that what matters is the game, what happens during duels. The uncompetitiveness of KR is determined by the RNG effect of KR, not the intent of the players using the item or the gamefreak devs coming up with the KR mechanic. Intent is irrelevant in a such a ban discussion.
  7. I don't know what you are smoking @Munya, but it's clear that this thread is for discussing ban reasons.
  8. It does matter tho because they have no shame in banning P2 as Offensive Uber. Imagine how stupid that sounds: P2 eviolite banned as OFFENSIVE UBER!!! It would be so simple to actually listen to the community and what they have to say and ban p2 as Defensive Uber, but they don't listen and disregard their own tiering policy. There is absolutely no point in opening discussion threads if they do not consider the arguments being presented. KR is no different. They will set a new precedent out of the blue that primary intent is a ban criteria under the uncompetitive umbrella. No one knows what that means or wtf they are talking about. The discussion needs to be centered around the 40% flinch, not about the comparing primary intent of Moves vs Items. The primary intent of moves like Waterfall is different from the primary intent of items like KR? Euh, maybe? And no one cares really.
  9. When you try to make a case for something to get banned as uncompetitive, you put forward arguments to show that the degree of RNG involved is UNACCEPTABLE. Primary Intent is completly irrelevant? What does that even mean anyways? The primary intent of the player using whatever may be deem banworthy? The primary intent of the item itself? Can an item have intent? Like WTF. Just refer to the tiering policy instead of this farce. I am completly fine with KR getting banned, but please can you guys put at least a semblance of effort into this ban?
  10. That's the argument that should be made. Not fucking primary intent.
  11. Where in the tiering policy is "primary intent" a banworthy factor? Please link where that is stated.
  12. How many TC members asked for a Dugtrio thread so far?
  13. Signatures for the MVPs and winners of PSL 14. Mismagicians players can contact Tear directly for their signatures.
  14. Regenerator has been recently added to the clauses and ban list. Your tournament would therefore be the first tournament of this new metagame.
  15. I'll give one month for people to claim their prizes. Whatever remains unclaimed will go towards the BAN DoubleJ Fondation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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