Jump to content

Why Segregate Ubers?


Recommended Posts

I've made some suggestions and seen other people make suggestions regarding PvP, such as buffing Outrage, adding Fairy types, etc. All of which have been turned down by a common notion, "We don't want anything in Ubers," as if Ubers are essentially taboo.

So my question is, why are we segregating Ubers so much to where a heck ton of things have to be adjusted to prevent it? Like keeping Outrage at 90 BP, making it rather useless, not allowing Hydreigon to learn Draco Meteor, albeit the fact it can learn it in EVERY other game.

 

Besides, the meta is rather stale and boring as it is. And all gen 4 is gonna do is throw Garchomp and maybe Gastrodon into the fray, that's about it.

Having an Ubers tier would give people the ability to use ANY Pokemon, and thus make for more interesting matches with less predictable outcomes.

I mean, I"m pretty sure it wouldn't be that much work to make an Uber section in the matchmaking) and revert the changes that made Ubers taboo; giving Hydreigon Draco again, buffing Outrage to 120 as it is in current games, giving Dugtrio its current stats, etc.

 

Ubers are just as important of a part of the game as literally any other Pokemon. Segregating them by either nerfing a heck ton of moves or not allowing full access to a couple of them(*looks at Uber legends*) is a terrible idea.

 

(And to be honest, it's really bad game design)

Edited by BoltBlades12
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, BoltBlades12 said:

I've made some suggestions and seen other people make suggestions regarding PvP, such as buffing Outrage, adding Fairy types, etc. All of which have been turned down by a common notion, "We don't want anything in Ubers," as if Ubers are essentially taboo.

So my question is, why are we segregating Ubers so much to where a heck ton of things have to be adjusted to prevent it? Like keeping Outrage at 90 BP, making it rather useless, not allowing Hydreigon to learn Draco Meteor, albeit the fact it can learn it in EVERY other game.

 

Besides, the meta is rather stale and boring as it is. And all gen 4 is gonna do is throw Garchomp and maybe Gastrodon into the fray, that's about it.

Having an Ubers tier would give people the ability to use ANY Pokemon, and thus make for more interesting matches with less predictable outcomes.

I mean, I"m pretty sure it wouldn't be that much work to make an Uber section in the matchmaking) and revert the changes that made Ubers taboo; giving Hydreigon Draco again, buffing Outrage to 120 as it is in current games, giving Dugtrio its current stats, etc.

 

Ubers are just as important of a part of the game as literally any other Pokemon. Segregating them by either nerfing a heck ton of moves or not allowing full access to a couple of them(*looks at Uber legends*) is a terrible idea.

 

(And to be honest, it's really bad game design)

I know you've been told all these things before and you just plug your ears and ignore them rather than actually take feedback, but I'll try again. It's not that Ubers as a tier is this thing no one wants - it's that, by adding some of these game mechanics that have very clearly led to bans in other, similar metagames (buffed outrage for example), we'd be taking very common, popular threats out of the OU metagame. You think OU is stale now? (completely subjective, not a valid argument btw) - well imagine it without any dragons. 

 

I feel like you're envisioning an Ubers tier from one of the main generation metagames, which if so, would make sense why you'd want it. With the legendaries in there, Ubers becomes a fun, albeit uncompetitive tier option. However, we don't have legendaries. Devs very clearly aren't about to just release legendaries the old fashioned way, this is common knowledge so I don't know why you keep pushing for it or pretending they haven't announced plans for legendary dungeons 300 times. 

 

A bunch of the other things you said are meaningless/make no sense. Oh, hydreigon has gotten draco meteor in every other game? No other game had a uniquely balanced OU meta without legendaries, rendering hydrei somewhat on the brink of being banworthy. Keeping draco off and outrage nerfed is a terrible idea? and bad game design? Well, I'm glad you're being honest. But why? Give reasons, because all the ones youve given are shit and have been batted down constantly, over and over.

 

edit: disclaimer - we SHOULD have legendaries by now. But not the legendaries you seem to want, for some reason. We should have the OU legendaries, and the fact that devs have still not delivered on this is extremely disappointing but not surprising. Lets face it - it's a lot easier to implement a region that's already been designed in another game than to come up with completely new content in the form of legendary dungeons

 

Edited by Gunthug
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

You think OU is stale now? (completely subjective, not a valid argument btw) - well imagine it without any dragons.

I looked at the tierings from BW on Smogon(since its the one they’re basing MMO off of). And I can confirm that even with Hydreigon getting Draco or Outrage getting to 120 BP still makes them OU

(In fact, the only 2 Non-Legendary Dragons that ever made Ubers were Salamence and Garchomp. And that was in Gen 4. They both got knocked down to OU come Gen 5)

 

Long story short, even if Outrage/Draco got reverted, nothing would really change.

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

No other game had a uniquely balanced OU meta without legendaries

To be fair, it’s not really balanced here either. And we don’t have legendaries here.

 

But I think I might be getting where you’re going at. Waiting till we get sinnoh and dungeons along with the non-Uber legendaries first, THEN worrying about adding Ubers might not be such a bad idea.

Edited by BoltBlades12
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, BoltBlades12 said:

I looked at the tierings from BW on Smogon(since its the one they’re basing MMO off of). And I can confirm that even with Hydreigon getting Draco or Outrage getting to 120 BP still makes them OU

(In fact, the only 2 Non-Legendary Dragons that ever made Ubers were Salamence and Garchomp. And that was in Gen 4. They both got knocked down to OU come Gen 5)

 

Long story short, even if Outrage/Draco got reverted, nothing would really change.

 

There's an enormous amount of differences between our meta and then BW meta (even though they're roughly the same gen) which make this comparison completely unreliable. But it seems based on your next comment you kind of get that

 

31 minutes ago, BoltBlades12 said:

To be fair, it’s not really balanced here either. And we don’t have legendaries here.

 

But I think I might be getting where you’re going at. Waiting till we get sinnoh and dungeons along with the non-Uber legendaries first, THEN worrying about adding Ubers might not be such a bad idea.

Remember, those sinnoh pokes + non uber legendaries have a MASSIVE impact on the OU metagame. Without them, we've seen threats like conk and reuniclus, nowhere near OP in the BW metagame, suddenly become problematic. That alone should show you how far away from a true BW meta we are. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

That alone should show you how far away from a true BW meta we are. 

So you’re implying that after we get a true OU metagame, then we might get an Uber tier to play in?

(and potentially the legendaries and reworks for such)

Edited by BoltBlades12
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, BoltBlades12 said:

So you’re implying that after we get a true OU metagame, then we might get an Uber tier to play in?

(and potentially the legendaries and reworks for such)

Well, that depends on how they implement legendaries. The traditional Ubers "tier" kind of needs your run of the mill OP legendaries to have any substance, but I could see the devs keeping those particular legendaries as mini-games, kind of like mewtwo and rayquaza are, and only making non-uber legends available in dungeons. This raises some interesting concerns though, such as what happens if TC decides one of the "non-uber" legendaries is actually too strong for OU? Anyway, we don't know enough yet to speculate about how Ubers may look in the future - but the more pokemon they add, the more likely it is to become a thing, so I'd just be patient tbh. There's not much else we can do

Link to comment

I just went through your entire activity log and you made 12 topics regarding legendaries and/or ubers since you joined...twelve. Note these are only the topics made by you, not counting the unrelated ones made by other people which you tried to steer into another legendaries rant and you were always given a clear explanation. At this point even you must realize how childish this makes you look and why people treat you the way they do.

 

Now, this being the thread number 12, I am genuinely surprised that people are still trying to discuss this with you instead of just trolling this thread to the ground and I really hope you take your time to actually read what they say.

Link to comment
Just now, Dazuzi said:

I just went through your entire activity log and you made 12 topics regarding legendaries and/or ubers since you joined...twelve. Note these are only the topics made by you, not counting the unrelated ones made by other people which you tried to steer into another legendaries rant and you were always given a clear explanation. At this point even you must realize how childish this makes you look and why people treat you the way they do.

 

Now, this being the thread number 12, I am genuinely surprised that people are still trying to discuss this with you instead of just trolling this thread to the ground and I really hope you take your time to actually read what they say.

i guess this is why he's called boltblades12

Link to comment
1 minute ago, gbwead said:

We can't afford adding and supporting a new tier. If Uber is added, NU, LC or Doubles should probably no longer be considered as official tiers and I doubt people want an Uber over NU, LC or Doubles.

As you know, Doubles isn't a tier, but the kinds of pokemon that would likely populate an Ubers tier could also help bolster the doubles roster too. More importantly though, Ubers is likely to pull players from the OU playerbase rather than UU, NU or LC, so I don't think it's nearly as much of a problem as, say, adding an RU tier. There's a bunch of reason's why we don't need an Ubers tier right now but this seems like a pretty minor one

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BoltBlades12 said:

So my question is, why are we segregating Ubers so much to where a heck ton of things have to be adjusted to prevent it? Like keeping Outrage at 90 BP, making it rather useless, not allowing Hydreigon to learn Draco Meteor, albeit the fact it can learn it in EVERY other game.

Because a conscious decision has been made that we do not want Ubers as a tier in the game, for many reasons which have all been listed out to you in your past threads and I will not be repeating. You can easily go back and look at them if you've forgotten (at your leisure).
 

2 hours ago, BoltBlades12 said:

Besides, the meta is rather stale and boring as it is. And all gen 4 is gonna do is throw Garchomp and maybe Gastrodon into the fray, that's about it.

Subjective claim, impossible to prove or deny and due to the fact that this is (apparently) a minority viewpoint it is largely irrelevant. We can't simultaneously appeal to people who want things to stay the same and also appeal to people who want things to change. The minority tends to lose because the primary goal is to keep an active player base usually.
 

2 hours ago, BoltBlades12 said:

I mean, I"m pretty sure it wouldn't be that much work to make an Uber section in the matchmaking) and revert the changes that made Ubers taboo; giving Hydreigon Draco again, buffing Outrage to 120 as it is in current games, giving Dugtrio its current stats, etc.

This is correct, it would indeed take little to not time to implement as a feature, but the issue is not that it's hard to implement it's that it is not wanted in this game currently, based both on previous official statements on the matter (which always cite that changes were done to avoid ubers, often at the advice / consultation of the tier council which are far more knowledgeable on the PvP metagame than either you or I.) and on the seeming majority viewpoint of the playerbase.

 

2 hours ago, BoltBlades12 said:

Ubers are just as important of a part of the game as literally any other Pokemon. Segregating them by either nerfing a heck ton of moves or not allowing full access to a couple of them(*looks at Uber legends*) is a terrible idea.

(And to be honest, it's really bad game design)

If you are so confident it is a bad idea and is terrible design the burden of proof lies with you, if you are indeed correct in your assertions you should be able to make a convincing arguement to convince us using facts and proposing systems that do not have more holes in them than Swiss Cheese. You have made numerous threads and each new thread tends to receive the same response.

You are unlikely to get much serious discussion on the forums as you are not mentioning anything new in this discussion, you are simply re-stating your opinions and the basis for said opinions once again. The majority of people who have replied to your threads so far have not been convinced, it's unreasonable to expect them to be convinced by you saying it a second time. Nothing in this post is new ground for you, it's all been said before.

I am locking this thread because, for the second time, please stop making thinly veiled suggestion topics in general discussion. Please edit this into your suggestion threads if you consider new points for your arguments.

Link to comment
  • Matoka locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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