gbwead

I'm Canadian too, no one here ever calls me nice 😢

This doesn't make sense. You can't apply a scoring system designed for unlimited number of spots to old school brackets where there were fewer rounds. You're half way through the bracket already after the 2nd round. No one complained because there was no impact. If you give prizes retroactively, it does have an impact. And the scoring system you made is not appropriate for the time. I know I'm triple posting. I apologize. If possible, please merge my posts. You have complete power here. You decide what is official and what is not. You can decide that, for 2013 to 2019, what is official is 5 pts to the winner, 2 pts to the loser. I understand your point if there was multiple scoring system for Team Tournaments at the time, but the reality is that there weren't other scoring system and that means something. When players have different views, they each do their own system. That was not the case. No one disputed DoubleJ ways when it came down to Team Tournaments. @Bearminator You have put so much work in Team Tournaments. Tracking and scoring the performances of each team over the course of more than 10 years. I can't even begin to imagine how long that must have taken. Thank you. I'm not trying to shit on your work. I just hope that you can see that others worked too. Please look at DoubleJ's thread. Look at the comments. Players were not fighting about the scoring system for TT, they were fighting about the scoring system for individuals. When it came to teams, the only things players asked was to please add Player Y as a noteworthy player TEAM W. That should show you how much it meant to be in a team back then. There was no large cash prize to compete for. There was no vanity to win at the end of the year. The only thing teams won was recognition. And this is what the thread shows. I'm not saying DoubleJ thread should get an official status. I'm just asking if you could please honor how the team of the year was determined back then. edit: Please don't rewrite history.

Please understand that the only scoring system that existed at the time was the one set up by DoubleJ. It was simple: 5 pts for the winner; 2 pts for the loser. That's it. When people disagreed with DoubleJ's scoring system, they created their own. That's what I did in 2017, I created my own scoring system for individuals. That's what Lkrenz did in 2018, he did the same. That's what Lifestyle did in 2018. However, no one fought agaisnt the scoring system DoubleJ made because it was straightfoward and fair. AW is an amazing team, the decorated team in the history of this game no question about it. Saying RNG/Saké won 2016 and AURA won 2017 doesn't take anything from AW. However, RNG/Saké and AURA fought hard to get the title of best team of the year. I don't think it's fair that years after they won, their title gets stripped away based on a new scoring system. It's quite sad really, it feels like spiting in our faces for the little we won.

It wouldn't be fair to use any point system that was created after the competition of those year ended. The scoring system has some fundamental flaws. It got changed and improved. That's really good, but some flaws still remain and I wouldn't be surprise if it changes again. Also, TT in 2016 were quite different than now. They were limited spots, smaller brackets, etc. A scoring system that was designed recently would not even make sense for back then. At the time, the only form of recognition teams got was a mention in @DoubleJ thread. Back then, it was simple. Whoever won the most TT was team of the year. In 2016, RNG won 3 TT and Saké won 3 TT. That meant they were tied these teams shared that title. This what the scoring system used at the time: Considering brackets were smaller, it didn't make a lot of sense to award teams with points just for reaching round 2 or semis. You reach finals and then it's either a win or a lose. I would like to point out something extremely important too. In 2016, YUBELLLLLLL won 3 TT with RNG and 3 TT with Saké. YUBELLLL won a total of 6 TT in 2016. I simply can't imagine a situation where YUBEL who was part of the two teams that tied for best of the year in 2016 ends up with no recognition whatsoever 7 years later. Anyways, thank you for honoring retroactively the teams that competed in Team Tournaments. However, if you do so, please consider doing so by respecting the customs of the time.

I have noticed some errors in previous announcements regarding the best team of each year. I never really cared since it had no impact, but if there will be some prizes given retroactively I would like to point out these mistakes: Team [RNG] RandomNoobGamers should be get the title for the year 2016.

So what's the situation with Venomoth?

Sharpness was released on the 28th of April. 2 months would end on the 28th of June. Should we expect a decision at that time?

If the objective is to fix current issues by adding new features or mechanics, whoever is in charge of making these additions needs to actually bother to ask the competitive community. Right now, additions are deicided based on economy, gameplay design, story lore, PVE and so many different things before looking at PVP. Let's be real, the competitive scene will never be the number 1 priority in this game and this is entirely fine, most players do not play PVP at all or nothing more than casuals. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the tiering system has nothing to do with PVE, nothing to do with gameplay design or story lore. The tiering system should not be held hostage just because having "ubers is bad game design". If ubers are bad game design, then don't add broken stuff to check other broken stuff without even asking anyone what they think. You can't ask for no ubers, but put pvp decisions on the low priority list. These things are not compatible. If you don't want any ubers, PVP must become a priority. If you don't want ubers, you can't freeze tiers for 3 months. If you don't want ubers, you need to communicate your projects with the competitive community. The competitive community does not develop the game, they play it, their input should be invaluable. What I don't understand is that: Serperior gets added, it's deemed a problem by many and a couple of months later we see Amoongus getting added. Amoongus gets added, it's deemed a problem by many and a couple of months later we see Gallade getting added. What's next? Why are these things decided without even asking us? We know this game extremely well. We know the metagame better than anyone. Don't you guys care to make the game good? I understand that for PVE, it's better to release an update where players are blindsided with new content, but this is horrible way to handle PVP. Blindsinding PVP players has led to the most atrocious metagames in the history of this game.

Balance/Stall Cancer: Amoongus + Gliscor Amoongus + Gliscor + Water type (Rotom-W/Jellicent/Empoleon/Gastrodon) Amoongus + Gliscor + Water type + Dark type (Sableye/Tyranitar/Hydreigon/Weavile) Amoongus + Gliscor + Water type + Dark type (Sableye/Tyranitar/Hydreigon/Weavile) + Steel type (Skarmory/Bronzong/Empoleon) Hyper offense: Starmie + Dragonite Starmie + Dragonite + Steel type (Scizor/Lucario) Rain: Pelipper + Steel type (Scizor/Ferrothorn Explosion) + Ground type (Garchomp/Excadrill/Seismitoad) + Special attacker (Kingdra/Golduck) + Kabutops/Dnite/Toxicroak/Ludicolo/etc. (2). Stall: Weezing / Chansey Trick Room: Reuniclus / Bronzong / Conkeldurr

Usage stats as of Today: Usage Win Rate Overall Tournament Garchomp 40.64% 41.18% 51.19% Scizor 33.06% 32.14% 51.14% Rotom-W 28.73% 28.36% 51.88% Dragonite 26.60% 31.72% 52.28% Tyranitar 18.57% 16.18% 50.58% Starmie 18.26% 21.43% 52.20% Gallade 15.80% 21.43% 53.63% Gliscor 15.77% 19.75% 52.09% Chansey 15.04% 11.34% 48.68% Conkledurr 14.44% 14.92% 51.37% Breloom 13.65% 12.39% 53.39% Volcarona 13.21% 11.97% 48.01% Hydreigon 12.27% 15.76% 50.29% Amoongus 12.11% 14.71% 53.40% Mienshao 11.71% 8.40% 48.53% Gyarados 11.58% 16.18% 48.97% Pelipper 11.45% 9.03% 49.08% Skarmory 11.06% 10.50% 51.09% Excadrill 10.45% 15.13% 53.00% Kingdra 10.44% 7.35% 49.18% Ferrothorn 10.30% 6.51% 46.92% Serperior 9.92% 13.45% 53.36% Weavile 8.73% 10.92% 51.57% Reuniclus 8.51% 11.55% 53.83% Metagross 8.41% 22.69% 54.16% Mamoswine 7.58% 11.34% 54.48% Chandelure 7.49% 6.09% 48.32% Darmanitan 7.23% 2.73% 48.66% Infernape 7.18% 11.97% 52.36% Gengar 6.96% 3.99% 43.78% Togekiss 6.84% 4.20% 49.44% Kabutops 6.71% 5.88% 50.39% Cofagrigus 6.44% 2.73% 45.69% Blissey 6.13% 2.94% 46.40% Espeon 5.86% 4.20% 51.06% Lucario 5.72% 6.72% 51.53% Magnezone 5.65% 6.09% 52.67% Jellicent 5.34% 11.34% 55.24% Weezing 4.57% 3.99% 51.30% Torkoal 4.56% 1.47% 47.35% Ditto 4.16% 1.89% 49.99% Seismitoad 4.12% 3.78% 50.12% Porygon2 4.01% 4.41% 54.90% Salamence 3.95% 1.89% 46.73% Milotic 3.86% 1.89% 42.34% Bronzong 3.74% 2.94% 52.61% Toxicroak 3.68% 3.15% 49.60% Empoleon 3.44% 2.31% 51.89% Mandibuzz 3.22% 5.25% 52.01% Cloyster 3.22% 1.68% 45.69% Hippowdon 3.10% 2.73% 48.57% Jolteon 3.08% 1.26% 39.19% Venusaur 2.98% 1.05% 46.87% Sableye 2.85% 2.94% 52.99% Crobat 2.44% 1.26% 44.61% Gastrodon 2.34% 4.62% 50.18% Dugtrio 2.34% 3.36% 56.24% I would like to present my analysis on the following Gallade set because that is the set I tested: Gallade @ Choice Scarf Ability: Sharpness EVs: 252 Atk / 4 Def / 252 Spe Adamant Nature - Sacred Sword - Psycho Cut - Leaf Blade - Trick Vs Garchomp Gallade can 2HKO Garchomp with stab moves and a good chance to 2HKO Garchomp with Leaf Blade. Since 2 hits are required to secure a kill, Gallade would take 11.88% Rough Skin Dmg twice by using Sacred Sword and Leaf Blade. In a 1v1 situation, Gallade will likely lose the encounter vs Garchomp if it locks itself on a contact move giving the dmg output of EQ the the rough skin dmg. Overall, in most situations, Garchomp can't really afford to switch into Gallade and expect to survive unless the Garchomp is Choice Scarf or Bulky. Vs Scizor If Gallade is healthy enough to survive, Scizor can only switch on Psycho Cut or Leaf Blade. Otherwise, it will automatically lose. In a 1v1 situation, Scizor should pretty much always win. Vs Rotom-W Rotom-W can never really afford to switch on Gallade. Even if Psycho Cut is not a 2HKO, any prior dmg could be enough to secure the kill on top of the increased chance to crit (23.44%). In a 1v1 situation, if Rotom-W is healthy, Gallade would be at risk of taking WoW to the face or chipped by Volt Switch into a pokemon immune to w.e Gallade locked itself into. Vs Dragonite If Dragonite still has multiscale, Gallade can't 2HKO it with anything other than Psycho Cut and even Psycho Cut Might not be enough. Considering Dragonite most common item is leftovers (42.82% usage), there is a good chance Dragonite will be out of range of getting KO by a second Psycho Cut. Not killing with Gallade is almost certain death vs Dragonite since Dclaw does a lot (not to mention Dragon Gem) and Extreme Speed can be used as a nice finisher if Gallade is not healthy. Vs Tyranitar Obviously, a locked Gallade into Psycho Cut is screwed vs Tyranitar. Tyranitar will automatically die against Sacred Sword. Tyranitar will likely live Leaf Blade if healthy, but can't afford to switch in on that move. Important note: If Gallade for w.e reason chooses to do Trick and TTar switches in, Gallade will still outspeed Ttar if Ttar is not speed invested, so that's not as awful as it may first look. On top of that, Ttar doesn't have a clean KO on Gallade with Crunch, but chip dmg from Sand or anything else is a big factor. Vs Starmie Starmie has no business switching into Starmie, w.e the move Gallade locks itself into, Starmie will likely lose. Starmie might want to switch into a Trick in order to secure some dmg or a rapid spin, but that's very disappoiting. Vs Gliscor Gallade can simply not do anything vs Gliscor. Even trick will only get Gallade toxiced which might end up being a good thing depending on the rest of the team, but when it comes to the encounter vs Gliscor, Gallade is blocked. I have to go and will try to complete this analysis later. So far, in the top 8, only Gliscor and Dnite can switch in with relative low risk against this set. In 1v1 situation, Gallade is in a bad spot vs all of them except Ttar and Starmie. Vs Chansey Chansey can afford to switch on Gallade when it locks itself on Leaf Blade and Psycho Cut. However, if Gallade does Trick or Sacred Sword, Chansey is basically dead or as good as dead. In a 1v1 situation, if Chansey doesn't run Protect, it will be forced to predict. Vs Conkeldurr Conkeldurr can't really switch into Gallade unless it predicts it will do Trick (that would be disastreous for Gallade). Even Leaf Blade has a chance to 2HKO when we consider chip dmg from Flame Orb on Conkeldurr. In a 1v1 situation, Gallade needs to do Psycho Cut. Otherwise, if Conkeldurr is healthy, Gallade will be at risk of getting KO'd by Facade Conkeldurr.

To the players that have tried Gallade Assault Vest, what EV spread and Nature would you recommend? When I face an AV Gallade, I can never figure out if they play with speed or bulk.

At my expense 😢

I had only two interactions with you in this thread and there was no mention of new abilities, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, Assault Vest does not boost Gallade's physical defense. People that run Assault Vest on Gallade use Gallade vs stuff like Hydreigon and Volcarona. There is nothing wrong with that. If Gallade is capable of tanking a Choice Spec Hurricane Kingdra or a Shadow Ball Life Orb Gengar, that's relevant, that's impressive bulk, that's something to talk about. This thread is about Gallade. This means we can talk about SD Gallade. We can talk about Scarf Gallade. We can talk about Assault Vest Gallade. If someone wants to talk about Impish Leftovers Gallade, that's allowed too. We should look at what each set can do and what are the counter plays for each set. If some of the counter plays suggested work for more than one set, that's good, that would mean stopping Gallade is easy. However, if the Gallade's counter plays are few and set limited, in that case there is a problem. That's something to figure out and that's what this thread is for.

Cmon Munya, stop derailing this thread by talking about Lucario. On this note, I would like to point that that Assault Vest is now the third most used item on Gallade right after Life Orb and Choice Scarf. Gallade's bulk is pretty good.

Good post, but I simply can't stop laughing at this.

SD / Sacred Sword / Psycho Cut / Night Slash is the most common I have seen. Like I said, you don't get to choose when your opponent is choice locked and when it isn't. Your example applies only for when Gallade is choice locked, but that's out of your control. If you are running a Cofagrigus + Ttar in the same team, your team isn't really fast so far. If you look at Cofagrigus' most common allies you will see that there are several that get outsped by Gallade: My point here is that even if SD Gallade can be revenge killed, there is still other opportunities for Gallade to make more kills if it gets on the field in front of Chansey, Conkeldurr, etc. I don't know what's the deal with your attitude, but not every single person that disagrees with you is dishonest or trolling.

The most common Gallade set is Life Orb: If you lead Ttar and I lead Gallade, you can't freely switch on Cofagrigus or Weezing. That's a prediction (hoping I clikc Sacred Sword on Ttar as you switch out) because if I do SD as you switch out, Cofagrigus will get OHKO. This means, no WoW, no Pain Split, none of that. Your scenario only applies if your opponent does exactly what you want him/her to do. You don't get to choose when your opponent's mon is choice locked and when it isn't.

Infernape suffers seriously from 4MSS, from poor bulk and from its stat distribution. Sure it may not have 1 perfect counter, but each Infernape set will beat a very limited amount of mons. Each set of Gallade covers the vast majority of our metagame. Hydreigon gets pretty much countered by AV Mienshao. I have seen maybe 2 acrobatics Hydreigon in the past 6 month and one of those was in a PSL duel. Physical Hydreigon would not be a common battle condition. Dragonite. I don't see the issue. P2 stops nearly all sets, but even if Dnite has the perfect set to have a small chance to beat P2, P2 will still gain access to multiscale when switching on it anyways. Special wall Hippo has also been great against Dnite in the past and I'm sure Gliscor is probably pretty decent against it as well. Breloom gaining acess to CC doesn't change anything in regard to what can counter it and what can't. The big change for the previous counters is gaining access to Zen Headbutt and Aerial Ace which mean giving a hard time to Weezing and Amoongus. However, Breloom suffers also from 4MSS and can't have perfect coverage all at once. Gallade doesn't have that problem. Crawdaunt is fine in OU, but it will struggle against so many things like Toxicroak, Dnite, Amoongus, etc. It's just so far from comparable to Gallade.

I agree with this a lot. The problem is that, historically in this game, testing lasts way longer in OU. It took 8 months to get something done about Garchomp. It took roughly the same amount of time with Serperior. It took even longer to get rid of Snorlax in gen 3. For this reason, I don't blame people for asking now for something to be done because 2 months from now, they will very likely be told to still wait. A sense of urgency now could pay off later. I'm personally not convinced Gallade should be banned. I feel like it meets the criteria to be banned and yet it makes our metagame healthier. That's not a good reason to keep something from getting banned, but I have enjoyed its presence so far.

Gallade is OU by usage. It didn't get banned.

@caioxlive13 , I am curious to know what you think of these very relevant questions about Gallade. Please give us your insight.

Previously, our system was this: Because the cutoff point for moving up is so high during the first and second month, we almost never see anything moving up during those months. Because the cutoff point for moving down is so low during the first and second month, we almost never see anything moving down during those months. Because the third month cutoff point for moving up is so low compared to the cutoff point of the first and second month, we see a lot of pokemon moving up. Because the third month cutoff point for moving don is so high compared to the cutoff point of the first and second month, we see a lot of pokemon moving down. Because nothing moves during the first and second month, we see a lot of movements during the third month. The third month has to catch up basically. Problem: When a season starts, the metagame changes significantly compared to the previous season. This doesn't work because TC has doesn't have any reference point anymore to determine what needs to be banned and what needs to be tested. Therefore, TC needs time to make up their mind, but by the time they do make up their mind, the season ends and everything changes again. This means TC can't do their job properly. By freezing the tiers for the first and second months, the amount of movements to expect for the third month will be even higher. This is exactly what we don't want. This is exactly what people have been complaining about. Bombs are the issues and those are caused because there are not enough movements during the first months of each season. Freezing the tier creates more bombs. TC is overloaded because they freeze tiers and they have to catch up when 20 pokemon move up and down all of a sudden.

I don't understand. I said there was a problem with the current usage system and that it needs to be reformed. The problem is that the usage system leads to volatily and yoyoing in movements. This means lower tiers are shaken every season to an unacceptable degree. The TC can't do their job because of that since any metagame analysis becomes irrelevant as soon as the new months start. The multiple solutions I suggested to solve this problem aim to reduce volatility and yoyoing by increasing the amount of usage movements during the 1st & 2nd months and reducing the amount of usage movements for the 3rd month. What you did is the exact opposite. You froze the tiers entirely. Nothing will move until we reach the third month. This will lead to crazy volatilty and yoyoing. Tiering can't work like that.

Can we get some context on this? Did someone in TC ask for this? Was it a discussion? A vote? This decision goes against a lot of what TC members have said publicly, so I don't understand how this was requested. I'm not looking for a name or anything like that, just perhaps some clarification on how it was requested.

Litteraly the worst thing that could possibly happen. Just a few weeks ago we just saw an enormous amount of usage movements. The entire community complained that usage movements were not handled properly. By preventing even more mons from moving, this will lead to even more riddiculous movements in the future. Tdlr: See you in 2 months for the next shitshow.