Jump to content

gbwead

Members
  • Posts

    6103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by gbwead

  1. Very few offensive mons can afford to switch into it. It could easily be labeled as uber defensive.
  2. There is no suspect test btw. Historically, a suspect test refers to when a pokemon gets banned with the assumption the meta will be healthier without its presence. Once that assumption is confirmed through a suspect test, the mon becomes officially banned. Lately, a suspect test also refers to the reintroduction of a previously banned pokemon (like p2 in UU). Nidoqueen was not banned before. Nidoqueen is not being reintroduced. Nidoqueen Sheer Force has never been NU before.
  3. Thank you for the Nidoqueen and Cloyster threads. Please make one for vaporeon too.
  4. I understand why you don't want to make every scenario black or white, but based on your reply to lifestyle, you are implying that there is a difference between losing by "not signing up" and losing by "forfeit" or "throwing": That's fine, but it's really not obvious to most of us that these ways of losing are treated differently where one raises more suspicion than the other. If I know I have to leave in 15 mins, it's therefore better not to sign up at all instead of playing for fun for a few minutes (since assumptions could be made based on these few minutes). Also, I want to insist of the following point you made earlier regarding why Matchfixing in tournaments is a problem: Match Fixing in tournaments is bad because it affects other players in the tournament. I want to point out that this reasoning does not apply to finals. There is no one to scout or to prepare for after the finals. It is not advantageous whatsoever. I'm not saying match fixing should be allowed in finals, just that the reasoning you have provided is imo flawed. I think punishing match fixing in tournament could simply be justified by saying match fixing gives a bad image of the competitive scene, because there are multiple scenarios where players are not affected at all by match fixing and that doesn't necessarily makes it okay.
  5. @Bearminator Thanks for your reply. It's appreciated. However, I fear the problem of match fixing remains quite vague for many of us. Could you please fill the following table, so we can all be on the same page? Fillable table in spoilers: I realise my request could be seen as me just being annoying, but I can assure you that this is not my intention and I only seek clarity on this matter.
  6. 99.99% of match-fixing in tournaments result in no consequence. I'm not saying you only ban big names, I'm saying you only ban players that get reported and those represent almost nothing. This is not much different than getting a bye when there are not enough players to fill a tournament. Not a big deal imo. This also doesn't apply to finals. On a seperate note, what are your thoughts about players that join tournaments but can't stay until the finals? Could you clarify the following situation and what would be the consequences? I join a tournament and reach round 3. I know who my opponent will be because my opponent has been stalling the tournament. I get an emergency call and I have to leave in the next 30 mins. There is no way for me to finish the tournament. What happens? Am I allowed to not play my duel? Am I allowed to forfeit my duel even if I am winning? Is there a difference between forfeiting/not playing vs a friend compared to someone I don't know?
  7. I would like to discuss the current match fixing policy and invite others to share their thoughts on the matter. There is match fixing in every single tournament, but nearly no one ever gets banned for it. Since hardly anyone gets punished for match fixing, players assume forfeiting vs friends is completely fine. It’s common practice really. I don’t have facts to back up this statement because providing facts would mean calling out players or snitching on them. I don’t want this thread to become that so I really hope whoever is reading this will take my statement “match fixing is common practice” as face value. Tournament players witness match fixing all the time, but staff members only when a report is made. This is quite problematic because the only time players will be punished for match fixing is when someone has a vendetta against them to the point where they will make a report. Rules apply to everyone and therefore should also be enforced in regards to everyone, not only the high profile players or the hated players. This has already led to witch hunts and more are to be expected if this unhealthy way of dealing with match fixing remains. Match fixing on ladder is also very different to match fixing in tournaments. When we see match fixing in tournaments, the only people affected by the match fixing are the players of that specific duel. If a player chooses to abandon, that’s on them and no one else suffers because of it. It’s their problem. When there is match fixing on the ladder, every single competitor on the ladder gets affected negatively. When a player boosts the ELO of another by losing on purpose, all the other players on the ladder lose a spot on the rankings in comparison to the player that got boosted. Ladder match fixing is unfair and something must be done about that. When it comes to punishments, there should be a big distinction between punishing match fixing on ladder and match fixing in tournaments. However, it would be in my opinion more appropriate to put in place some measures that would reduce match fixing in general. For instance, a warning message regarding match fixing integrated in the current “Are you sure you want to forfeit message?” could go a long way in making players aware that match fixing is forbidden. Anyhow, I’m glad something is done about match fixing, but I think some aspects of this issue need to be addressed and clarified.
  8. Imo, you guys should just vote publicly so people will automatically know if a ban is about to be reversed or if a suspect test is about to start. If that was the case, you could easily remove this entire section.
  9. My understanding is that TC would then be allowed to blindside the competitive scene by banning stuff without any discussion taking place. Ban first, discuss later? Plz, no. We need more transparency, not the other way around. We need a way for players to open discussion threads, so the burden of opening these threads doesn't fall solely on the TC members shoulders. The bold part is way way way too vague. If someone says "ban charizard" and someone else replies "yes please", that should not be enough to warrant a ban. A discussion need more than that. If a pokemon could end up as banworthy, people need to know so they can make their case for or against the ban. That's what specific discussion threads are for. If someone writes in the NU thread "ban charizard", how am i suppose to know that i need to take this post seriously and reply because that simple minded post could end up being enough to warrant a ban?
  10. For Pokemons, there are 2 ban categories: Uber Characteristics (Offensive/Defensive/Support) Unhealthiness If a pokemon doesn't fit offensive uber characteristics perfectly and also doesn't fit defensive uber characteristics perfectly as well. The pokemon may still be banned as unhealthy. Almost all pokemon that are deemed uber will also be unhealthy, but a pokemon that is unhealthy might not be uber. Ultimately, the only practical difference between the two categories is that a pokemon can be quick banned as Uber, but can't be quick banned as unhealthy since unhealthiness needs to be demonstrated with the pokemon in the tier. When it comes to P2, the reason why it fits Defensive Uber characteristics is because it walls a good portion of the metagame (8 or 9 out of 10 like you said) and it also prevents a lot of offensive pokemon to switch into it. P2 is not a passive wall or a set up bait. The combination of these two aspects are more than enough to deem that P2 fits defensive uber characteristics. However, I don't agree at all that P2 fits Offensive Uber characteristics since it's not a very difficult pokemon to wall. Its most common sets are naturally stopped by pokemons like Umbreon, Unaware Clefable, Gigalith and Dusclops. Bronzong, Spiritomb and Snorlax are a little bit more shaky, but can sometimes work. I can't see P2 as a wallbreaker or a sweeper, so I don't think it fits Offensive Uber characteristics to a sufficient degree. For reference point, these are the definitions we are working with:
  11. I apologize, this was not my primary intent.
  12. What's the protocol for a mon to be removed from the BL list? Venomoth was banned from NU on the 29th of July, 2018. Kingdra was banned from UU on the 26th of August, 2018. It doesn't make sense for Kingdra to have been removed from the BL list while Venomoth has remained there.
  13. There is no reason for Gatr to be quickbanned and for Salamence to be moved up. It's the exact same situation. Now if Gatr were too drop to NU, I think TC could absolutely quick ban Gatr, but no reason to make the BL2 list longer for no reason in the meantime.
  14. Fera and Machamp are not BL2. They got moved up when Fera gained Sheer Force and Machamp learned Mach/Drain Punch. The same thing happened with Salamence, it got moved up. It's not on the BL1 list.
  15. Let me make it clear for both of you: This post is extremely wrong and stupid. When a mon is suspected to have OFFENSIVE UBER characteristics, you should look at the walls it breaks. This post is mostly wrong. When a mon is suspected to have DEFENSIVE UBER characteristics, you should look at the offensive threats it denies. Clefable, Slowking, Lanturn and Altaria are hardly relevant when analysing the defensive characteristics of a pokemon. With that being said, @pachima, you can't really complain that Wrath is wrong to look at defensive mons as counters to a potential defensive uber pokemon because 1) you did the exact same thing in your previous paragraph when an offensive pokemon was being looked at 2) you fucked up royally when you were TC and banned P2 as offensive uber instead of simply defensive uber You can't cast stones at people when you are showing the worst example of what should not be done. You can't blame new TC members for not understanding our tiering terms correctly when you have set an awful precedent when using them in the past.
  16. Venomoth and Haxorus should both be retested. The metagame in NU and UU has changed so much that the reasoning behind those bans no longer applies. In NU, Venomoth now has to deal with Mantine Haze, Altaria Haze, Golbat Infiltrator, Unaware Clefable, Assault Vest mons, etc. We didn't even have Blaziken in NU when Venomoth got banned. In UU, Haxorus has to deal with all the new threats that dropped in the past years. Tbh, with some exceptions of course, the UU tier has so many mons from the pre-sinnoh OU meta and in that old OU meta, Haxorus was not viable. For instance, Milotic, Hippo, Cloyster, Jolteon and Salamence were all OU pre-sinnoh and participated in making Haxorus unviable. We also have new threats that would not be kind to Haxorus like Ditto. The only reason I can see why they would not be retested is that the timing just sucks with all the movements already happening. Lower tiers are overwhelmed. Back in 2016, usage movements were happening every month. Every month, all the mons over 4.36% would go up and all the mons under 4.36% would go down. There was a lot of changes each month and a lot of yoyoing. The 3 months cycle system was put in place to reduce the amount of yoyoing, but by doing so the amount of changes on the third month are completly absurd. The cut-off points for the first and second months of the cycle are just way too high and way too low. In the past 7 years, there has been 0 movements during the 1st and 2nd month. The 3 months cycle system was never designed to prevent movements during the first and second month, it was designed to make movements more difficult for these months, but not impossible. Because those movements are impossible for the first months, when the third month arrives, players have to deal with all the movements that have been prevented all at once. Most of the movements could have happened gradually from January to March and players would have been able to adapt more easily this way. Dropping everything at once every 3 months is very bad design. Do something @Munya. I have suggested to you so many solutions for this problem over the years, just pick one already. And if the solutions I suggested don't work, at least put in the effort of coming up with your own solutions.
  17. @Munya Where can I find the updated UUBL and NUBL lists?
  18. Reminder to TC that, according to the tiering policy, a thread needs to be opened for each pokemon they wish to quick ban. 5 days left before April...
  19. If P2 gets banned again as offensive uber instead of defensive uber, plz fire Munya.
  20. just because you are a troll in need of attention, it doesn't mean you have to comment on matters that do not concern you
  21. Everything that had to be said was already discussed. There is no point in repeating ourselves. The staff in charge of PvP just need to do their job.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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