Jump to content
  • 46

Ban Quick claw & Kings rock


DarylDixon

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

From a tiering perspective, these items are quite bad overall and really do not warrant a ban. If they get removed from pvp, it's not a tiering decision. It's a matter of preference and I probably would prefer if they weren't available. However, I still don't think it's a big deal and I won't stop playing if these items are not removed.

Link to comment
  • 0
11 hours ago, gbwead said:

From a tiering perspective, these items are quite bad overall and really do not warrant a ban. If they get removed from pvp, it's not a tiering decision. It's a matter of preference and I probably would prefer if they weren't available. However, I still don't think it's a big deal and I won't stop playing if these items are not removed.

so at this point, why not unbanning the other banned items?

Link to comment
  • 0
1 minute ago, DarylDixon said:

brightpowder and i do not remember what else was banned since those items are "balanced XD" just  we can free that item .

Those items are still not broken and bad overall. I would support if these items get removed as a game design or w.e it should be called decision , but not as a tiering decision.

Link to comment
  • 0
6 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Those items are still not broken and bad overall. I would support if these items get removed as a game design or w.e it should be called decision , but not as a tiering decision.

but i didnt nominated ur tc about that  ass item those type of items just need to be removed from pvp

Edited by DarylDixon
Link to comment
  • 0
29 minutes ago, DarylDixon said:

but i didnt nominated ur tc about that  ass item those type of items just need to be removed from pvp

ya, i know, i am just making sure this general discussion thread doesnt turn into a tiering discussion thread because it was heading down that road with the posts in the previous page from what i can see

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment
  • 0
17 hours ago, gbwead said:

From a tiering perspective, these items are quite bad overall and really do not warrant a ban. If they get removed from pvp, it's not a tiering decision. It's a matter of preference and I probably would prefer if they weren't available. However, I still don't think it's a big deal and I won't stop playing if these items are not removed.

 

1 hour ago, gbwead said:

Those items are still not broken and bad overall. I would support if these items get removed as a game design or w.e it should be called decision , but not as a tiering decision.

Those items fall within one of the PvP clauses, so while it isn't specifically a tiering decision, it does have an overlap with the purpose of the TC to make competitive play more balanced (just not through tier modification).  

 

I don't know why the comp community wasn't even consulted regarding such a change.  It'd be nice if someone could channel their inner Karen and ask to speak to the manager about why such a change took place.

 

6 hours ago, Raichuforyou said:

I think the other items have been considered more egregiously bad especially because one deals with evasion and seems to go hand in hand with violating the evasion clause.

The evasion clause banned moves like Double Team or Minimize that constantly boosted a pokemon's evasion to such a point that it could always dodge an attack.  Items like Brightpowder give the holder a fixed chance of dodging an attack (10% chance to dodge a 100% accuracy move) so they aren't egregiously bad.

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0
8 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Those items fall within one of the PvP clauses, so while it isn't specifically a tiering decision, it does have an overlap with the purpose of the TC to make competitive play more balanced (just not through tier modification).  

I disagree with 2 things:

1. What PvP clause is that? The "OP item" clause? That might be a PvP clause, but that doesn't make it a tiering clause. My understanding is that the OP item clause has nothing to do with tiering and more to do with creating a more pleasant environment for pvp players. I am all for that more pleasant pvp environment and I am in favor of getting these items removed.

 

2. There is 0 balance issue with these items because these items make you lose way more than they might make you win. There might be competitive issues with these items though, but since these items are so bad because of the considerable drawback that comes with playing them, the competitive issues are minor if not insignificant.

Link to comment
  • 0
28 minutes ago, gbwead said:

I disagree with 2 things:

1. What PvP clause is that? The "OP item" clause? That might be a PvP clause, but that doesn't make it a tiering clause. My understanding is that the OP item clause has nothing to do with tiering and more to do with creating a more pleasant environment for pvp players. I am all for that more pleasant pvp environment and I am in favor of getting these items removed.

 

2. There is 0 balance issue with these items because these items make you lose way more than they might make you win. There might be competitive issues with these items though, but since these items are so bad because of the considerable drawback that comes with playing them, the competitive issues are minor if not insignificant.

1) There is a Baton Pass clause even listed under the PvP, that was heavily discussed in the Comp Alley because of its impact on PvP.  I don't recall there being one specific abuser of Baton Pass that made the entire move warranty of being banned, but just that it was in general uncompetitive.  I think the TC played a role in having it banned, which is why even though Baton Pass strictly had nothing to do with tiering, it still fell under your purview.  I could be wrong about this because it's been so many years ago, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

2) I don't think these items should be viewed from a "Tiering" perspective because our characteristics for something being banworthy : 1) Offensive 2) Defensive 3) Support, usually apply to Pokemon.  There should probably be a separate criteria for items / moves / abilities that are inherently uncompetitive.  The issue isn't about how often can these items make you win or lose, it's about how these items add an unnecessary amount of RNG to the game.  I am quoting language below from the PokeMMO list of clauses thread:

 

"Clauses are several standard rules that can be used in a match. They serve to stop overpowered strategies, reduce the amount of RNG and make the game more enjoyable overall."

 

The language in the quote is the standard by which we should look at Quick Claw / Kings Rock.  Baton Pass also falls under such language because it is an overpowered strategy.  I just think the Tier Council should apply tiering principles to Pokemon, and have a different set of principles for items / abilities / strategies.

Edited by NikhilR
Link to comment
  • 0
3 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

1) There is a Baton Pass clause even listed under the PvP, that was heavily discussed in the Comp Alley because of its impact on PvP.  I don't recall there being one specific abuser of Baton Pass that made the entire move warranty of being banned, but just that it was in general uncompetitive.  I think the TC played a role in having it banned, which is why even though Baton Pass strictly had nothing to do with tiering, it still fell under your purview. 

1) I agree with everything up to the bolded part. Baton pass is absolutely a tiering decision. I agree that a tiering decision doesn't have to be about a specific pokemon, it can be about an entire mechanic, move or something else.

 

18 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

1) There is a Baton Pass clause even listed under the PvP, that was heavily discussed in the Comp Alley because of its impact on PvP.  I don't recall there being one specific abuser of Baton Pass that made the entire move warranty of being banned, but just that it was in general uncompetitive.  I think the TC played a role in having it banned, which is why even though Baton Pass strictly had nothing to do with tiering, it still fell under your purview.  I could be wrong about this because it's been so many years ago, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

2) I don't think these items should be viewed from a "Tiering" perspective because our characteristics for something being banworthy : 1) Offensive 2) Defensive 3) Support, usually apply to Pokemon.  There should probably be a separate criteria for items / moves / abilities that are inherently uncompetitive.  The issue isn't about how often can these items make you win or lose, it's about how these items add an unnecessary amount of RNG to the game.  I am quoting language below from the PokeMMO list of clauses thread:

 

"Clauses are several standard rules that can be used in a match. They serve to stop overpowered strategies, reduce the amount of RNG and make the game more enjoyable overall."

 

The language in the quote is the standard by which we should look at Quick Claw / Kings Rock.  Baton Pass also falls under such language because it is an overpowered strategy.

"There are 3 main categories which can result in a pokemon or other aspect being banned from a tier. These typically apply to Pokemon, but in special cases, can apply to moves or even abilities as well. These main categories are as follows: Uber, Uncompetitive, and Unhealthy." What I quoted is from our tiering etiquette. Sure uber characteristics (offensive, defensive, support) do not apply to anything aside pokemon themselves. However, Baton Pass, Evasion moves and OP hax items can definitely be looked as potentially uncompetitive. In the case of OP items, they are so considerably bad, that even though they can be uncompetitive at times, it pales in comparison to the dmg they do to the users of these items and therefore they can't be banned as uncompetitive. They are not uncompetitive enough basically.

 

Senile's post about these items still applies today imo:

 

Link to comment
  • 0

I'd rather also see this (and kings rock) banned again and have expressed that in the TC. But the change was made higher up.

Sure, it's not broken. But it's unfun and doesn't improve the state of the competitive metagame, actually it probably has a net negative effect on it honestly.

It takes away agency from the opposing player. They can not outplay/predict a quick claw / kings rock proc.

Having agency as a player is what makes competitive games fun.

Link to comment
  • 0
On 9/18/2020 at 2:29 AM, NeonZ said:

Normally i seen....not a Healthy ammount of pokes using Trick Room in doubles and Taildwind. the only way to prevent is was Jumping with Quick Claw or Flinching those Pokes. in Doubles. talking about the rng fair how about the ELO is balanced?

What? Lmfao. TR you can just pack a TR user to cut it down, imprison users can work too, taunt works too. Tailwind you can just carry a user, set yourself, use stuff like icy wind, stall it out. Build a proper team instead. Those add no rng factor to the game.

 

 

Quick claw on the other hand, like pachima said, adds a layer of rng to the games that is uncalled for, a match shouldnt be decided by a rhyperior outspeed a scarf roserade for example

Link to comment
  • 0
7 hours ago, razimove said:

What? Lmfao. TR you can just pack a TR user to cut it down, imprison users can work too, taunt works too. Tailwind you can just carry a user, set yourself, use stuff like icy wind, stall it out. Build a proper team instead. Those add no rng factor to the game.

 

 

Quick claw on the other hand, like pachima said, adds a layer of rng to the games that is uncalled for, a match shouldnt be decided by a rhyperior outspeed a scarf roserade for example

affer the team anti-trick room become useless affer the other round...or work again on other user as you mention rng.

Link to comment
  • 0
4 hours ago, NeonZ said:

affer the team anti-trick room become useless affer the other round...or work again on other user as you mention rng.

The effects of trick room are guaranteed, the slower pokemon will always go first within a prirority bracket.  its duration is also a set amount of turns so that is a guaranteed effect that can be taken into consideration as well.  There is nothing RNG about it.


That said, i am not defending the suggestion to remove quick claw, I am pretty indifferent about it.

Link to comment
  • 0
40 minutes ago, redbluegreen said:

Please remove this uncompetitive bullshit. The only purpose it serves is to give a helping hand to the brainless apes who are too mentally deficient to take a game off a good player without sacrificing their first born child to satan and asking for a blessing of RNG.

Seems your argument is on You lost against a togekiss or just a user who uses a quick claw and luckily striked the first hit...

Link to comment
  • 0
23 minutes ago, NeonZ said:

Seems your argument is on You lost against a togekiss or just a user who uses a quick claw and luckily striked the first hit...

Not a togekiss but yes, and multiple times in a row in battles that would otherwise have been 100% won

 

These items add absolutely nothing to the game other than promoting luck based gameplay if you deem yourself unable to beat your opponent without copious amounts of rng.

Link to comment
  • 0
9 minutes ago, redbluegreen said:

Not a togekiss but yes, and multiple times in a row in battles that would otherwise have been 100% won

 

These items add absolutely nothing to the game other than promoting luck based gameplay if you deem yourself unable to beat your opponent without copious amounts of rng.

and you has been fighting the same person or you know the poke specially the one who uses quick claw?...

Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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