Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DoubleJ

[Discussion] Ubers

Recommended Posts

image.png.a5d3e109675728735ef5c01dae27f236.png

 

 

It has come to my understanding that the Tier Council is currently being restricted by their superiors to not ban any pokemon under the characteristic of "Uber" from competitive (PvP) play. This is incredibly flawed for many reasons. The Tier Council was initially developed to help balance our current PvP given our unique metagame when compared to other competitive Pokemon formats. The Tier Council developed a guide for discussion and bans, which was initially created by @Senile and later edited by myself. This tiering guide was largely based on the principles developed by Smogon University regarding their own tiering system. The first articles in this tiering guide are related specifically to bans, and not just bans, but bans to Ubers; meaning something is either too good, unhealthy, or not competitive for even the Overused tier. A link to the tiering guide is found below:

 

 

We as competitive players recognize that to be sustainable, the metagame needs to have some form of balance and balance is brought through well discussed bans. Arguably, we have three pokemon meeting criteria for ubers: Garchomp under the offensive uber characteristic; Togekiss under the unhealthy characteristic, and finally Wobbuffet under the uncompetitive description. Without the ability to ban these Pokemon after careful thought and consideration, we would simply be playing a broken system.

 

I recommend that we do away with this stupid rule to not allow any Uber bans and let our elected Tier Council members do the job they were asked to do.

 

Please discuss.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly there's not much to discuss, things were fine as they were and taking away joy of having a health-ish metagame from us because of someone's fancy is seriously wrong. We already have super long tournaments with ridiculously small prizes, now we're also having to deal with uber pokemons in OU.

 

Just get rid of this infinitely stupid, unwritten rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

With that in mind i'd like to see moves/abilities changed back to their most original form to further support having an Uber tier

 

e.g. Outrage basepower

Edited by Linken

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, gbwead said:

It seems that forsaken Boltblade visionary was ahead of his time @suigin

AvNfFFH.png

Edited by suigin

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Linken said:

With that in mind i'd like to see moves/abilities changed back to their most original form to further support having an Uber tier

 

e.g. Outrage basepower

Outrages most original form was 90 BP

Share this post


Link to post

Imo we should wait until next big balance/new content patch comes.

 

I am talking about last gen's mechanics/learnset which is what make our metagame so unique.

 

Also after two years, sinnoh as came and we're waiting for the next big update which was mentioned years ago: legendaries + hidden abilities (soon ™).

 

Even with the fact they won't be released all in the same moment, this potentially could shake the meta a bit.

 

About the current scenario, i agree with chomp and wobbu been a little problematic (tough the former can have answers and the later team preview) , but the meta was already  centered in a single mon/core in the past, and i dont know why this could be different right now.

 

Tl;dr

 

If devs say dungeons are coming in this quarter, wait. Otherwise, test ban wobbu and chomp for 1~2 months to see how it gonna affect the current meta.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how staff can expect the TC to balance an OU meta game once we get legendary dungeons without allowing for ubers, there's a reason there a mons that have been ubers since they were released.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, AndrewHavsha said:

I don't see how staff can expect the TC to balance an OU meta game once we get legendary dungeons without allowing for ubers, there's a reason there a mons that have been ubers since they were released.

Judging from current trends, I'd say they would probably erase some moves from those mons (like Jirachi wouldn't get Iron head, Headbutt and Zen Headbutt) to make them more "competitive". See: Hydreigon and Draco Meteor

 

It's just a speculation though because this unwritten rule is cryptic and pointless enough and you never know how else they would want to ruin the fun for us.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

Judging from current trends, I'd say they would probably erase some moves from those mons (like Jirachi wouldn't get Iron head, Headbutt and Zen Headbutt) to make them more "competitive". See: Hydreigon and Draco Meteor

 

It's just a speculation though because this unwritten rule is cryptic and pointless enough and you never know how else they would want to ruin the fun for us.

This sounds horrifying! Can you imagine how many changes they're going to make for things like Groudon, Rayquazza, Mewtwo, Arceus, Deoxys, Giranti... I could go on for a while. I'd probably hazard a guess and say 90% aren't reliant on a specific set/move for them to be problematic. Maybe they'll do us all a mercy and just make the super problematic legendary only obtainable like mewtwo and rayquazza are currently

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, AndrewHavsha said:

This sounds horrifying! Can you imagine how many changes they're going to make for things like Groudon, Rayquazza, Mewtwo, Arceus, Deoxys, Giranti... I could go on for a while. I'd probably hazard a guess and say 90% aren't reliant on a specific set/move for them to be problematic. Maybe they'll do us all a mercy and just make the super problematic legendary only obtainable like mewtwo and rayquazza are currently

Easy man. Groudon loses access to earthquake. Rayquaza loses dragon typing, Mewtwo is removed the "two" in its name, Arceus idk. Deoxyx can only be used in normal mode with defense´s speed, and lastly, Giratina is removed of its defenses. 

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, pachima said:

Easy man. Groudon loses access to earthquake. Rayquaza loses dragon typing, Mewtwo is removed the "two" in its name, Arceus idk. Deoxyx can only be used in normal mode with defense´s speed, and lastly, Giratina is removed of its defenses. 

Someone put this man on the TC he knows he's got a plan for everything 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AndrewHavsha said:

I don't see how staff can expect the TC to balance an OU meta game once we get legendary dungeons without allowing for ubers, there's a reason there a mons that have been ubers since they were released.

We're not releasing those.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, AndrewHavsha said:

Someone put this man on the TC he knows he's got a plan for everything 

No way dude, it's full ...

@pachima

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Why was this never replied to? And ignored like every other competitive thread... this is massively important to open a dialogue about so we can discuss why this is a very unhealthy rule to have in place, and yet there is no discussion; only agreement among the player base. Why does this unspoken rule exist?

Edited by Lvkee

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Because forums is ded. But that's a post for another time. This is what I gathered from this no-ubers-policy from a staff member: they don't want to outright ban Pokémon because Pokémon in this game take a good amount of resources to make. Especially if someone is going for a perfect Pokémon, or has multiple sets of the same Pokémon. So in stead they want to look at options that make a Pokémon broken and lock away those options. I completely understand this point of view.

 

But it is an extremely flawed way of viewing the problem.

 

Banning pokémon in the OU tier doesn't make them unusable. They are most likely still useable in Doubles and will have a place in niche tournaments and the eventual Ubers tier. There are also other ways around the problem. Like giving players a monetary compensation if they want to trade in the banned Pokémon for Pokeyen. This could be based on total IVs. The 'solution' the PokeMMO Staff have found is a quick band-aid; a short term solution, to something that will have long term ramifications. Do you know how convoluted the OU tier is going to be if we have a banlist like:

- No SD Garchomp

- No Draco Hydreigon

- 3 turn Shadow Tag

- No CM on Suicune

- No Flame Orb on Conkeldurr

Also factor in how it's going to literally take months to ban some of these things. Because first you have to come to an agreement that something is a problem THEN you have to get to an agreement on WHAT EXACTLY the problem on a Pokemon is. Is it typing, moveset, basestats, item abuse? Things will just get insanely messy with this policy in the long term.

 

But I get it, it seems like a fine solution for now because we barely have Ubers Pokémon. But I implore everyone to think ahead of that and think of Legendaries eventually becoming available one day, when you can have an actually functioning Ubers tier. In stead of having to completely overhaul the standing policies again when that happens, get ahead of it and change the current OU policies. Like I said, I think a monetary compensation works quite well, it's not perfect. But it'll work.

 

UNLESS, the developers never intend on having multiple Legendaries in the game, available to play. Or they cherry pick a few that they want to add, but will leave out most of the others. If that is the longterm path PokeMMO is going to take then I can see why these policies are in place now. But if that is the case then we need to know that! So let's all spam Kyu until they give us an answer.

Edited by ThinkNicer

Share this post


Link to post

To add to what Think said, I think the actual result of this "no ubers" policy is not to look at creative (ie: complex) solutions for keeping broken mons in check. The actual result has been, instead, to subtly but noticeably view broken pokemon as "not broken enough to warrant action." Which is shitty. Basically, we're allowing broken pokemon to damage a metagame because we're afraid to take any action whatsoever, as neither flat bans nor ridiculous complex bans/augmentations are desirable. Ultimately, the players who are meant to be "protected" by this rule are the ones who actually suffer 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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