Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gbwead

  • Birthday 10/20/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • IGN

Recent Profile Visitors

14410 profile views

gbwead's Achievements

  1. Both are arbitrary so that's why it doesn't make much sense to prioritize one criteria over the other which is the case now. I'm not sure that's the case. If you don't attack your opponent and only heal yourself, you're not taking the advantage no matter what time limit rule is in place. My opponent was 3 turns away from losing, so the only advantage he had was the one the time limit rule gave him at 15/20 mins (a win condition that would not exist otherwise). That really has nothing to do with stall and just taking advantage of a flawed system.
  2. I just lost a duel because of the 60 mins time limit rule. After 20 mins, the duel was over, but because it was 4v5, my opponent had this artificial win condition (because of the time limit rule) that allowed him to win if he survived for 60 mins. So the rule that is designed to prevent endless stalling encouraged my opponent to stall an unwinnable game. I understand the need for a rule to prevent tournaments from lasting forever, but that doesn't mean the rule needs to reduce the game to something as simple as whoever has the most mons would have won. There are many ways to make the 60 mins time limit rule better: 1. Instead of looking first at the number of mons alive and then at the sum of % of hp on these mons, why not look at these two criteria at the same time? The number of mons alive is an arbitrary value that does not really reflect who is the most likely to win. For this reason, the following formula would be better imo: (sum of the HP% of all mons of player 1) x (number of mons alive of player 1) vs (sum of the HP% of all mons of player 2) x (number of mons alive of player 2) I do not see why the number of pokemon alive should be a criteria more important than the % of hp of all mons. There are tons of scenarios where the number of pokemons alive is more important than the % of hp of all mons and there are also tons of scenarios where the % of hp of all mons alive is more important than the number of pokemon alive. Looking at both criteria at the same time rather than one and after the other gives a much better picture of who is the most likely to win in stall matches. 2. At 55 mins, both players could get the option to extend the 60 mins limit for an extra amount of time. In the event, the player that chooses to extend the time limit loses, this player ends up with a big penalty (money penalty, temporary tournament ban, etc.) Temporary tournament bans are already common practice for bad sportmanship on the ladder, so I think it would be more than fair for people that would abuse extensions. 3. The following suggestion is quite complex and requires probably more thoughts, but it can somewhat work imo: (Total dmg inflicted by Player 1 / Total HP recovered by Player 2) x (# of pp left of Player 1) vs (Total dmg inflicted by Player 2 / Total HP recovered by Player 1) x (# of pp left of Player 2) This formula is based on the assumption that, with all the PP used in 60 mins, Player 1 was able to inflict a certain amount of permanent dmg and whatever amount of PP remaining for Player 1 reflects on the amount of permanent dmg Player 1 will be capable of inflicting long term. I do not believe any of these suggestion will be able to predict perfectly who the winner should be long term, but determining the winner based on these suggestions would be more accurate imo.
  3. I want to comment on the hax item nerf. I think that decision is quite bad and reflects very poorly on the game. Affecting all hax items with the same nerf makes little sense since they are so different. Focus Band and Quick Claw are very very very bad. They significantly increases your chances of losing when using these items and that's why these items are unviable on litteraly every single pokemon and in every single tier. No one uses them and the few that do are either too poor to buy better items or too dumb to realize how bad these items are. Focus Band and Quick Claw did not need to get nerfed with a warning message. That's overkill. If the objective of this nerf is for these terribly shitty and worthless hax items to remain playable, the nerf is a failure then because disabling the item entirely would make Focus Band and Quick Claw more viable then displaying to your opponent that you do not hold a Focus Sash, Choice Band, a berry, etc. Removing the unknown aspect of what item is being held is too much. These items hax once every 2625109 full moons, they did not need to get nerfed this way. Keeping them or removing them from the competitive scene entirely is way better than this warning message non sense. King's Rock and Razor Fang are also terrible items, but they can be somewhat viable on Cloyster and really only Cloyster. The warning message for these hax items is not very effective, sure it's a nerf but the haxing effect of what makes the item problematic in the first place is not affected by this nerf at all. The best nerf for King's Rock was to simply take @RysPicz suggestion and removing the hax chances on multi hit moves, so that the flinch chance is a raw 10% on all moves. Please change this hax item nerf to something more appropriate.
  4. When the policy gets updated to reflect all of that, please let us know so we can discuss it (especially the nerf policy in OU).
  5. Team name: gb&dog Player OU: gbwead Player NU: poseidonwrath
  6. I don't think anything is black or white when it comes to pokemon battling. Speed Boost Blaziken has been banned over and over for instance. We all know Blaziken is clearly not broken without Speed Boost and that other Speed Boost users are also not broken. It's the combination of Speed Boost + Blaziken that is the problem. It's pretty much the same thing with Arena Trap. Caterpie with AT is not broken. It's only (thus far) Dugtrio + AT that some people deem problematic. An ability by itself can't really be problematic, it's only when that ability is paired with the right pokemon that an issue may arise. If we give Wonder Guard to Spiritomb, it would make more sense to ban Spiritomb than banning Wonder Guard (which would result in Shedinja being banned as collateral dmg). "Lastly, while most of the pro-ban arguments revolved around the most common user of Arena Trap, Dugtrio, many users also agreed that it was Arena Trap that was at the heart of the problem instead of Dugtrio. On the Dugtrio suspect test ladder back in February, a number of players successfully used Diglett and to a lesser extent Trapinch to fulfill nearly the same role as Dugtrio on teams, showing that the ability is clearly overpowered on any user." This is from the link you just posted. We are not in the same situation in PokeMMO. In the past 3 years, Diglett and Trapinch have not been used successfully to any extent.
  7. I'm not a TC member, but I'll explain why I don't think it's possible to consider AT a problem. We have 3 AT users in MMO: Diglett, Dugtrio and Trapinch. When Gen 5 came out, Dugtrio was quick banned (no teampreview + 100 base atk stat). During that time, Diglett and Trapinch were not played in OU, UU or NU. They were not played at all. When Dugtrio was unbanned, it ended up in OU for a while; during that time Diglett and Trapinch were still not played in UU and NU. Then Dugtrio moved down to UU; during that time Diglett and Trapinch were still not played in NU. What this means is that AT is hardly an abusable ability without the base stats and movepool to back it up. Diglett and Trapinch are clearly overwhelmingly unviable, unplayed and irrelevant. Therefore, Dugtrio might be a problem, but definetly not AT.
  8. Ban P-Z and then we can talk about P2.
  9. Is this the August usage? That would mean it's like 6 days usage which doesn't mean much, but ok let's look at it anyways. The most important thing to consider here is that 2% of OU winners use Sand Veil on Dugtrio and 8% of NU winners use Sand Veil on Dugtrio. This means only one thing: NU players are shit at this game compared to OU players and perhaps they shouldn't get involved in tiering decisions if they are so clueless. I ask a few people about what you said in bold and there is no consensus about what you were trying to say. I personally believe you were trying to say that it's more difficult to remove hazards in NU which mean Dugtrio has less reasons to run sash and is a better position to kill stuff since they won't be at full health. If that is what you were trying to say, then I believe you are simply mistaken. Hazard control is pretty decent in NU with mons like Golbat, Mantine, Rotom, Hitmonchan, Hitmontop, Golem, Serperior, Cryogonal, etc. I mean cmon, you know all of them, so why do you believe they are less effective than OU hazard remover. I disagree with most of what is said here. Reuniclus and Espeon are extremely different. Why is Dugtrio supposed to enbable Reuniclus at all? Is Dugtrio supposed to enable Psychic types? Dugtrio enables Togekiss btw by removing Ttar, Magnezone et sometimes Jolteon. First of all, I think NU players are trash compared to OU players, so I think NU usage doesn't really show what is viable in NU. For the record, Volcarona and Ttar are both top used mons; Dugtrio traps both. Dugtrio never traps without any effort at all. Unless your opponent is braindead - which is more likely in NU than OU - you will always have to make some plays or take some risks in order for Dugtrio to come on the field. I already adressed what I think about CB/Scarf/Sash Dugtrio, so I'm not going to do that again. Why can Skarmory and Ferro afford to run Shed Shell, but Nidoqueen can't afford it? Skarmory and Ferro would prefer running Rocky Helmet or Leftovers over Shed Shell and many players choose to play these items anyways at the risk of getting trapped. Magnezone traps one of these steel mons, but some people run multiple steel types just like some players run multiple weaknesses to Dugtrio. Sure Arena Trap can trap more things in general than Magnet Pull, but that doesn't change much in regard to teams that stack mons weak to Dugtrio in NU, these teams are not super viable even if Dugtrio wasn't around. If we didn't have Team Preview, I would agree. However, in MMO, we know in advance we are facing Dugtrio and the risks that comes with bringing on the field a mon that can be trapped. When in comes to uncompetitiveness, there is a huge gap between Arena Trap without team preview and Arena Trap with team preview. Arena Trap remains quite uncompetitive, but in order to bring out the most cancer out of Arena Trap, Arena Trap users need to be good as well. Trapinch and Diglett also have access to Arena Trap and would never be considered banworthy. Dugtrio has much better stats than them, but even with better stats, it's still not great (even by NU standards). Speed doesn't mean that much when Dugtrio is extremely weak, doesn't hit really hard and has a poor movepool. Its trapping options are therefore pretty limited.
  10. Ok good, if the Dugtrio/Arena Trap discussion is not about NU specifically, but all tiers I understand. I still don't think it is banworthy, but I respect the tiering consistency.
  11. I understand that Dugtrio is capable of trapping important mons like the ones you pointed out (Drapion, Blaziken, Typhlosion, Nidoqueen, etc.). What I want to understand is how is trapping mons like Drapion, Blaziken, Typhlosion, Nidoqueen, etc. more banworthy than trapping mons like Ttar, Infernape, Volcarona, Magnezone, etc. For me, it's pretty much the same thing.
  12. I feel people don't realise the terrible precedent banning Dugtrio or Arena Trap in NU would set. Is there a reliable NU viability list out there that we can all use as a reference point? People list so many pokemon being weak to Dugtrio and I can't help but wonder what kind of metagame they are playing. Are they really playing 6 mons weak to ground or with low defense in their teams? Who plays Manectric, Electivire, Blaziken, Magmortar and Drapion together. Let's be real, most teams, the ones that are decent, do not carry more than 1 or 2 mons weak to Dugtrio. And that's not because they are afraid of Dugtrio, it's because they simply shouldn't overlap weaknesses. Some may say that if Dugtrio can successfully trap 1 pokemon, that means Dugtrio is cancer, but that's the same cancer that we see in OU and UU. OU and UU players do not carry 6 mons weak to Dugtrio, they play no more than 1 or 2 mons weak to Dugtrio just like NU players. I really hate the idea that NU needs some special treatment and tiering should be done differently there. A lot of people point out that usage or win rate are not good metrics to determine if a pokemon is banworthy or not. I don't really disagree with that, but why then present Dugtrio as this huge meta defining threat with only usage to backup that statement. I'm sorry but usage in the case of Dugtrio doesn't show that the mon is viable or meta defining. The reason why Dugtrio is played so much is because Dugtrio is a popular mon and even people that hate Dugtrio play it. With Team Preview and a 80 base attack, Dugtrio is really not that good and that's the reason it has fallen to NU. And it would fall to Untiered if it wasn't for the fact that NU needs Dugtrio. The tier has been in a terrible state for years because of all the unstability caused the crazy usage cycles. A Pokemon like Dugtrio provides a lot of much needed stability to the players thanks to its uncompetitive ability. In a chaotic metagame constantly shaken up, Dugtrio's cancer simplifies games and that's what players want (not me, I don't play Dugtrio in NU). Dugtrio's utilities and drawbacks are clear. Perhaps the issue is simply that people love to hate Arena Trap and that's understandable, but clearly not enough for a ban imo.
  13. Typhlosion was not NU yet, so its usage didn't really drop because of Dugtrio. As for Manectric, it always sucked. Bad win rate and for some reason it gained usage lately. Electivire win rate was also always pretty bad, so I'm not sure Dugtrio is responsible for it being meh.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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