Jump to content
  • 8

just have a UBER tier


fredrichnietze

Question

so after talking with some tier council and staff i learned of a plan for the future of the game. basically

"no ubers, everything that SHOULD belong in ubers is goign to get a nerf to keep it in ou. example would be changing say salamances base stats or they way a ability or move works for all pokemon because of one or two pokemon."

my suggestion is to scrap this idea and just do tier'ing the way we always have and have a ubers tier.

 

my reasoning,

one far reaching consequences. at the moment their are 9 ubers in pokemmo. 11 if you count mewtwo and rayquaza. the current plan for slamance is to nerf outrage for ALL 50 or so pokemon that can learn it all  across multiple tiers. this changes not just the one tier with the one pokemon but everything in every tier. many unintentional nerfs or buffs will be created by this ONE change upsetting the balance. gen 5 has 22 ubers if you count all the multi form pokes like arceus as a single uber. this will very significantly change the game from the original "balance" intended. we all know pokemon handhelds are not perfectly balanced. that is why we have tiers and tier councils int he first place. all of these changes will change the tiers, checks, and counters and then you will have to balance them again. but ubers arent allowed so MORE CHANGES. 

two learning curve. pokemon has a high learning curve. lots of people play pokemon as it is the highest gross'ing franchise and even if 1% bother to learn competitive thats still a lot of people. however with all these changes, pokemmo and black and white will be nothing alike. new players who learn here will google resources only to learn the wrong things. players who learned on showdown or whatever will come here and not understand what is going on and have to relearn everything from scratch, however with the bonus confusion of thinking they understand things that have been changed. this makes the already hard learning curve more difficult. new comp players might just decided that this is silly and go play showdown and not bother with pokemmo.

three cannon/tradition. similar to the competitive learning curve, but a bit different. the learning curve effects competitive players as casuals generally dont much to begin with. however they and others will see differences and think "this isnt right" and not know why it is like this. thats why we dont have create a pokemon shit. this is a pokemon game and it should follow pokemon mechanics as closely as possible. 

four you are making tier'ing much more difficult. for tier'ing their is a process. you have pokemon, you take usage stats and figure out what is and isnt OU then start banning things to ubers because invariably their are unbalanced things. for what i can only assume is do to a desire to get the tiers done quicker, the method is not being used this time. instead we have this arbitrary list made up by a handful of people. the problems with this is the complexity. no one person can hold in their head every possible use of 500+? 600+? pokemon with multiple ability's and hundreds of moves and items and builds. their are so many variables and things like "how common will X be?" are unknown. however this is a rabbit trail. on top of this added degree of difficulty with will make the process more faulty, we are changing the rules and mechanics on the fly to try to make things "not op". the problem with this is way back at #1 far reaching consequences. one little change changes hundreds of things and when you make a lot of changes all at once it becomes too much for anyone to KNOW what will happen for sure. this is going to have faults not because the tier council sucks or whatever but because too much is being asked of them. their are too many variables and possibility's to say what will or will not be broken when you add all these changes on top of the already difficult changes to tier'ing process. their will be things that are uber because their counters got nerfed and until we go live and test and find these things we wont know. then what? well MORE CHANGES and the process continues. the weeks become months and the months become years of changes to moves and ability's and mechanics. to try and prevent anything from being uber. and these changes lead to more things being uber as their counters get nerfed or somethign else gets buffed and unexpectedly a rarely used pokemon is now stupidly strong. 

 

having a ubers tier is the simplest way. yes some pokemon wont be usable in competitive play. this has always been this way. this will always be this way. their will always be pokemon that are either too strong or not strong enough to be used in a tier. trying to find the perfect solution for this is just going to create more problems. their is no perfect solution. going down the path of this folly will lead to a lot of dev time down the drain and a lot of people upset because the teirs are in chaos trying to get this sorted. every attempt to change the game to balance this will lead to more problems. their is no fix. pls dont so this.

Link to comment

Recommended Posts

  • 0

What we're aiming for is PvE and PvP symmetry.

 

If something is broken in PvP it's obviously just as broken in PvE (Arguably moreso because the NPCs are not as advanced).

 

I'm not claiming that there isn't a slight difference between the two, but the end goal here is to teach players (through PvE) to adapt and evolve into having an understanding of PvP; thus being able to compete.

 

Having entire species and such completely separate from that makes the division bigger.

While I don't think that we'll be able to pull this off 100% (Though it's certainly worth a try), we'll certainly try our best.

 

Adding to this though, we don't want to hold back the difficulty of PvE purely because some people like to use their 'overpowered' techniques.

 

EDIT: Yes, some things are arguably just too powerful, and we'd like to try and find a solution to that - hence the lack of a Outrage 'buff'.

 

Link to comment
  • 0

pls no. i see what you are trying to do is solve two problems with one stone but pls no. outrage isnt a big deal. it's wrong but it isnt a big deal. 

THIS IS A BIG DEAL

no one wants conflict but this is a really bad idea. the division of tier'ing and game mechanics decision is a good thing. from those i talked to in discord just about everyone agreed with me but thought it a lost cause or didnt want to make a scene but thats what needs to happen. this isnt ok.

Link to comment
  • 0
22 minutes ago, Darkshade said:

What we're aiming for is PvE and PvP symmetry.

 

If something is broken in PvP it's obviously just as broken in PvE (Arguably moreso because the NPCs are not as advanced).

 

I'm not claiming that there isn't a slight difference between the two, but the end goal here is to teach players (through PvE) to adapt and evolve into having an understanding of PvP; thus being able to compete.

 

Having entire species and such completely separate from that makes the division bigger.

While I don't think that we'll be able to pull this off 100% (Though it's certainly worth a try), we'll certainly try our best.

 

Adding to this though, we don't want to hold back the difficulty of PvE purely because some people like to use their 'overpowered' techniques.

 

EDIT: Yes, some things are arguably just too powerful, and we'd like to try and find a solution to that - hence the lack of a Outrage 'buff'.

 

Posting on this account for credibility? :^)

 

It is certainly in the interest of the game's health and longevity, specifically for more casual players, to aim for symmetry between PvE and PvP. However, I'd argue that the existence of an Uber tier and the aforementioned symmetry are not mutually exclusive. I feel like an elegant and simple solution is just to raise the difficulty of PvE encounters to suit the strength of what would otherwise be classified as ubers in PvP.

 

One such way of doing this is by creating PvE encounters that aim to defeat strategies which would be generically powerful. I would turn to Hearthstone's PvE encounters to demonstrate this idea. Many of the PvE encounters in Hearthstone that have been recently have very specific conditions that urge a player to come up with certain strategies to beat the encounter. It is nearly impossible to use a generically powerful PvP deck in these PvE encounters because they have conditions which do not exist in PvP settings (in other words, the AI is cheating). Additionally, some of these PvE encounters have "obvious" solutions, and the designers predicted that by implementing ways to specifically punish those easy solutions, prompting the player to become even more creative.

 

I think this example is particularly transferable to Pokemon because Hearthstone is a card game which has very similar components and pacing to Pokemon; it is a turn-based game which requires the player to navigate encounters with a predetermined set of tools (deck in Hearthstone, team in Pokemon).

 

One concern with this approach might be that it doesn't "teach" players PvP, but I would argue that although my suggestion implies the potential introduction of mechanics that do not otherwise exist in PvP interactions, Pokemon PvP is based around a few core concepts that could be emphasized in PvE contexts similarly even with the addition of mechanics or with design choices that specifically target obvious solutions.

 

Ultimately, PvE interactions are always soluble while PvP interactions are not because PvE is inherently less dynamic than PvP. No matter what, people will always find optimal strategies to defeat PvE interactions, so trying to achieve symmetry with PvE and PvP is pointless. One has a static state while the other is dynamic. However, urging players to come up with new and creative ways of defeating PvE encounters is what makes them exciting and engaging. If a player could use a generically powerful strategy that they derived from PvP, I would argue that it reflects poor design, whether we are talking about ubers or not.

Link to comment
  • 0
21 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

pls no. i see what you are trying to do is solve two problems with one stone but pls no. outrage isnt a big deal. it's wrong but it isnt a big deal. 

THIS IS A BIG DEAL

no one wants conflict but this is a really bad idea. the division of tier'ing and game mechanics decision is a good thing. from those i talked to in discord just about everyone agreed with me but thought it a lost cause or didnt want to make a scene but thats what needs to happen. this isnt ok.

I am genuinely not attempting to be a dick when I ask this - but why? Why is this a bad idea?

 

I am not suggesting that there should not be a division in the tiering process and mechanic design (in fact there already is a slight one, when you look at things such as being able to use items during a battle etc.)

 

The problem occurs when you have species/mechanics that are too powerful to be used in PvP circumstances; being able to use a particular species or an ability that is outright banned in PvP is going to sweep our PvE content just as easily (probably more easily) a majority of the time.

 

This isn't good for the PvE content, nor is it good for PvP.

 

It's outright inexcusably shitty design to allow something to be obtainable and then say "Well actually you can't use that", so we're trying to reduce this as much as possible.

And yes, then you could argue "Well what if you allow it in PvE" - and we could do that, but that doesn't accomplish the symmetry we're aiming for, nor does it say a lot about the density of our PvE gameplay.

 

This doesn't matter as much in a single player game, because it doesn't have any economic impact etc.

I know the average player likes to Psytrike everything to death with Clonecat, but the gameplay environment/external effects are a little different here.

 

14 minutes ago, Barrage said:

Posting on this account for credibility? :^)

 

It is certainly in the interest of the game's health and longevity, specifically for more casual players, to aim for symmetry between PvE and PvP. However, I'd argue that the existence of an Uber tier and the aforementioned symmetry are not mutually exclusive. I feel like an elegant and simple solution is just to raise the difficulty of PvE encounters to suit the strength of what would otherwise be classified as ubers in PvP.

 

One such way of doing this is by creating PvE encounters that aim to defeat strategies which would be generically powerful. I would turn to Hearthstone's PvE encounters to demonstrate this idea. Many of the PvE encounters in Hearthstone that have been recently have very specific conditions that urge a player to come up with certain strategies to beat the encounter. It is nearly impossible to use a generically powerful PvP deck in these PvE encounters because they have conditions which do not exist in PvP settings (in other words, the AI is cheating). Additionally, some of these PvE encounters have "obvious" solutions, and the designers predicted that by implementing ways to specifically punish those easy solutions, prompting the player to become even more creative.

 

I think this example is particularly transferable to Pokemon because Hearthstone is a card game which has very similar components and pacing to Pokemon; it is a turn-based game which requires the player to navigate encounters with a predetermined set of tools (deck in Hearthstone, team in Pokemon).

 

One concern with this approach might be that it doesn't "teach" players PvP, but I would argue that although my suggestion implies the potential introduction of mechanics that do not otherwise exist in PvP interactions, Pokemon PvP is based around a few core concepts that could be emphasized in PvE contexts similarly even with the addition of mechanics or with design choices that specifically target obvious solutions.

 

Ultimately, PvE interactions are always soluble while PvP interactions are not because PvE is inherently less dynamic than PvP. No matter what, people will always find optimal strategies to defeat PvE interactions, so trying to achieve symmetry with PvE and PvP is pointless. One has a static state while the other is dynamic. However, urging players to come up with new and creative ways of defeating PvE encounters is what makes them exciting and engaging. If a player could use a generically powerful strategy that they derived from PvP, I would argue that it reflects poor design, whether we are talking about ubers or not.

Unfortunately I currently lack the time to address this post as much as I would like to (especially after responding to Fred), but we are adapting the difficulty of the PvE environment with the coming patch - not to the extent of Ubers,  but arguably with some comparisons to OU.

 

Teaching players mechanics etc. also counts, whereas the vanilla game will (at most) teach you through your standard storyline experience to use type effectiveness to your advantage, here we can teach people to use held items, avoid particular battle strategies etc.

 

We actually saw this in practice on the PTS, with a player using Flame Charge to outspeed a Gym Leader later down the line to gain the advantage.

While this might sound small, it's things such as this that vanilla gameplay normally does not teach you - you can usually just Flamethrower or overlevel everything and win.

 

This was also the intention of the AI, which remains unfinished currently - but it also requires teams built around specific strategies to show them off.

 

What we don't want to do is to put this difficulty on par with 'Ubers' with standard play, because it's not the environment we expect these players to battle in after they've played through the storyline campaign (nor the one we want them in).

 

It's going to be a relatively slow process overall, but I think an overall positive once we're there.

 

Link to comment
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Darkshade said:

Unfortunately I currently lack the time to address this post as much as I would like to (especially after responding to Fred), but we are adapting the difficulty of the PvE environment with the coming patch - not to the extent of Ubers,  but arguably with some comparisons to OU.

 

Teaching players mechanics etc. also counts, whereas the vanilla game will (at most) teach you through your standard storyline experience to use type effectiveness to your advantage, here we can teach people to use held items, avoid particular battle strategies etc.

 

We actually saw this in practice on the PTS, with a player using Flame Charge to outspeed a Gym Leader later down the line to gain the advantage.

While this might sound small, it's things such as this that vanilla gameplay normally does not teach you - you can usually just Flamethrower or overlevel everything and win.

 

This was also the intention of the AI, which remains unfinished currently - but it also requires teams built around specific strategies to show them off.

 

What we don't want to do is to put this difficulty on par with 'Ubers' with standard play, because it's not the environment we expect these players to battle in after they've played through the storyline campaign (nor the one we want them in).

 

It's going to be a relatively slow process overall, but I think an overall positive once we're there.

 

It sounds like a major concern is that players would not be able to use Pokemon they might use in PvE in their PvP encounters because of tiering. A world where the player can use every Pokemon obtainable in PvP and have the PvP environment be balanced is likely not achievable, which is not necessarily a bad thing. If PvE encounters are profitable, it actually diversifies the economy that certain Pokemon are very powerful in PvE environments and are not otherwise used in PvP. This creates an economy where different Pokemon have value for different reasons, rather than eclipsing each other because they have synonymous roles with varying levels of strength. I hope that makes sense. If you're interested, we could have a discussion about it over voice chat sometime.

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

It sounds like a major concern is that players would not be able to use Pokemon they might use in PvE in their PvP encounters

That's actually not it. It's more the fact that if it's OP in PvP, it will be OP in PvE as well in some circumstances. By some circumstances I mean trainer tower scenarios but not say Halloween boss scenarios. But point is for the sake of not limiting the kinds of pve they can add, they don't want some things to be op.  

Link to comment
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Rigamorty said:

That's actually not it. It's more the fact that if it's OP in PvP, it will be OP in PvE as well in some circumstances. By some circumstances I mean trainer tower scenarios but not say Halloween boss scenarios. But point is for the sake of not limiting the kinds of pve they can add, they don't want some things to be op.  

Read my other post, baka. Also, : 

39 minutes ago, Darkshade said:

It's outright inexcusably shitty design to allow something to be obtainable and then say "Well actually you can't use that", so we're trying to reduce this as much as possible.

 

Pretty sure that's what he was saying.

Edited by Barrage
Link to comment
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Darkshade said:

To clarify: We see both of those things as an issue.

 

Riga's point was what I was referring to when going over the density of PvE gameplay.

Could you clarify what is meant by "density of PvE gameplay", as well as clearly state the concerns around it?

Link to comment
  • 0
Just now, Barrage said:

Could you clarify what is meant by "density of PvE gameplay", as well as clearly state the concerns around it?

By "Density of PvE gameplay" I'm referring to the thought/methods required to beat it - we want to make some things 'challenging' sometimes, instead of having it so that a particular species is able to sweep through all of PvE with little to no effort.

 

One could argue that this could be done by using things considered 'Ubers' in PvE (as you did above), but the downside to this method is that it promotes a type of gameplay that isn't reflected in our PvP instances, and in turn does not teach players very much about what is required to compete within it.

 

It's also a problem when it comes to balance, we can make a standard PvE instance as hard as we'd like, but to effectively achieve any kind of balance we're largely limited to the best things we make available - of course this is going to exist with some level when it comes to OU mons, but having it so that we need to put an uber on every team just to keep that difficulty/balance is not in any way ideal.

 

tl;dr effectively this:

 

16 minutes ago, Rigamorty said:

if it's OP in PvP, it will be OP in PvE as well in some circumstances. By some circumstances I mean trainer tower scenarios but not say Halloween boss scenarios. But point is for the sake of not limiting the kinds of pve they can add, they don't want some things to be op.  

 

Link to comment
  • 0

Leaving Outrage at base 90 power imo is fine. Considering we don't have the Fairy Typing yet. I'd vote til we get that typing (if we get that typing) it can remain at 90 power, then buff it when we do get fairy types.

 

However, YOU CAN NOT BALANCE PVP WITH PVE along side each other as both would have their own issues. PvE is against the environment, while PvP is against players. PvE should never be a tool to teach a player how to PvP only to be a tool to teach how to play the game. (As of right now)

As for instances/dungeons/whatever its never going to be really competitive like it would be in World of Warcraft (or insert other MMORPG here) and PokeMMO is far from that stage as of right now. Mostly because we do not have a party system where we can group up with players to complete a dungeon. At the same time, you have to give the dungeons mechanics regarding the encounters and bosses.

But the rest of what I want to post is more of its own suggestion and is meant for its own thread.

Edited by Kite
Link to comment
  • 0
5 minutes ago, Darkshade said:

By "Density of PvE gameplay" I'm referring to the thought/methods required to beat it - we want to make some things 'challenging' sometimes, instead of having it so that a particular species is able to sweep through all of PvE with little to no effort.

 

One could argue that this could be done by using things considered 'Ubers' in PvE (as you did above), but the downside to this method is that it promotes a type of gameplay that isn't reflected in our PvP instances, and in turn does not teach players very much about what is required to compete within it.

 

It's also a problem when it comes to balance, we can make a standard PvE instance as hard as we'd like, but to effectively achieve any kind of balance we're largely limited to the best things we make available - of course this is going to exist with some level when it comes to OU mons, but having it so that we need to put an uber on every team just to keep that difficulty/balance is not in any way ideal.

Consider that the "ceiling" of power (the highest level of power available) in a metagame or environment is x. The absolute value of x is irrelevant because no matter how you adjust the ceiling, there will always be things close to x and things below x. There's not much point in trying to lower it because of that. I am not suggesting that Pokemon at power level x should always be used in PvE encounters by the AI either. I was suggesting that PvE encounters have unique components that make them difficult to solve, which could include implementing mechanics that don't exist in PvP. It was suggested that having too many differences between PvE and PvP would not teach players about or segway them from one to the other, but that all depends on your design, since as I mentioned before, Pokemon's battle system revolves around only a few core concepts. I hope that explains my ideas a little better.

Link to comment
  • 0

I'm so glad to know this, because I look at some pokes in pokemon and I said "why? why did they do this? what were they thinking?" and knowing that there will be a balancing and some nerfs to make it more symetrical is really a relief.

Link to comment
  • 0

To sum it up:

Its not about outrage, forget about it, nobody really wants it.

What the devs want is to keep ubers from breaking PvE and to make them usable in PvP.

But if we go ahead with the "Modify things to keep every pokemon in OU" several things might change:

  • Not boosting moves (as in the case of outrage and perhaps knock off), which affects any pokemon which learns it.
  • Removing moves from the learnset, which affects a whole pokemon family. - Mentioned by Darkshade as a possibility.
  • Removing abilities from certain pokemon (think sand veil garchomp, arena trap dugtrio, speed boost blaziken), which affects a whole pokemon family. - Mentioned by Darkshade as a possibility.
  • Modifying the base stats (think reducing salamences Atk and Spe by 10), which affects a single pokemon. - Mentioned by Darkshade as the most unlikely option.

I'm on the fence about the first three bullets, but would definitely be against the fourth.

If you want to prevent the inevitable shitstorm of all times from winding up this may as well be the last chance to voice your opinion in the matter.

Edited by axx
a word
Link to comment
  • 0

I mean here's the argument for what the devs are trying to do here. Here's the usual formula for competitive pokemon:

 

  • Gamefreak, a completely detached entity, releases whatever the hell they want. This includes shit that is just not competitive in any universe, a good example is the move baton pass in general. 
  • some tiering body, usually smogon, bends over backwards trying to use bandaids to even things out, and make a competitive metagame possible. 
  • sometimes, they find success through simply banning things to ubers. However, keep in mind they are only working with PVP and have no PVE to concern themselves with
  • other times, they aren't successful, as problems persist through several metagames before finally someone throws their hands up and says enough (see: the years of ridiculous baton pass clauses before they finally came to their senses)

 

We have a unique opportunity here - the developers and those who help form the competitive metagame (not just the TC, but the community at large really) are linked and can work together to prevent some of those unsolvable problems from arising at all. Dragons got so powerful in gen 5 that gamefreak ended up releasing a whole new typing to try to keep them in check - what good did this do the gen 5 metagame, though? or the gen 4 meta? Nothing. I think it's an advantage we have that these problems can potentially be snuffed out early in our situation. You'll never see me get behind something like altering base stats, ever. But things like choosing not to buff outrage to ridiculous levels, or not releasing a problematic ability (remember, sand rush actually got exca banned in gen 5 for a period) can actually be hugely beneficial in the right moments. So don't be too quick to rush to judgement just because this is a slightly different approach than we've taken in the past. Let's see how this "policy" (if you can even call it that, since it's mostly just hypothetical at this point) actually affects the tiers and gameplay before we jump to conclusions

 

 

Link to comment
  • 0

Id just appreciate some more info from the Dev team in regards to:

  1. What are you changing before Gen V hits live in order to prevent problematic pokemon from going ballistic?
  2. Can you make changes to moves/abilities/base stats once the game hits live or does this require updating the game?
Link to comment
  • 0
2 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

I mean here's the argument for what the devs are trying to do here. Here's the usual formula for competitive pokemon:

 

  • Gamefreak, a completely detached entity, releases whatever the hell they want. This includes shit that is just not competitive in any universe, a good example is the move baton pass in general. 
  • some tiering body, usually smogon, bends over backwards trying to use bandaids to even things out, and make a competitive metagame possible. 
  • sometimes, they find success through simply banning things to ubers. However, keep in mind they are only working with PVP and have no PVE to concern themselves with
  • other times, they aren't successful, as problems persist through several metagames before finally someone throws their hands up and says enough (see: the years of ridiculous baton pass clauses before they finally came to their senses)

 

We have a unique opportunity here - the developers and those who help form the competitive metagame (not just the TC, but the community at large really) are linked and can work together to prevent some of those unsolvable problems from arising at all. Dragons got so powerful in gen 5 that gamefreak ended up releasing a whole new typing to try to keep them in check - what good did this do the gen 5 metagame, though? or the gen 4 meta? Nothing. I think it's an advantage we have that these problems can potentially be snuffed out early in our situation. You'll never see me get behind something like altering base stats, ever. But things like choosing not to buff outrage to ridiculous levels, or not releasing a problematic ability (remember, sand rush actually got exca banned in gen 5 for a period) can actually be hugely beneficial in the right moments. So don't be too quick to rush to judgement just because this is a slightly different approach than we've taken in the past. Let's see how this "policy" (if you can even call it that, since it's mostly just hypothetical at this point) actually affects the tiers and gameplay before we jump to conclusions

 

 

so like, I just feel compelled to say this because I've seen sooooooo many people hype up the dragons like crazy, but dragons were literally not problematic at all in gen 5. Except maybe Garchomp. But yknow, that was because of Sand Veil, and also, fuck Garchomp. Honestly, most of the dragons other than Multiscale Dragonite were decently low usage in OU, tbh. Salamence, Haxorus, and Hydreigon all saw kind of pitiful usage compared to what you might expect, in favor of weather mons, or the super bulky, multipurpose Dragonite.

 

IMO Fairy Type wasn't just about keeping Dragons in check. While I'm sure Dragons played a part in it, with Fairy allowing them to push the envelope for dragons a bit farther, IMO Fairy was largely a balancing factor for the other type changes they made in Gen 6. Namely, nerfing Steel by making it neutral to Dark and Ghost. Adding Fairy gave Steel more offensive viability to compensate for this nerf, and gave Dark another resistance, something that was sorely needed after removing Steel's resistance to it.

Link to comment
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Senile said:

so like, I just feel compelled to say this because I've seen sooooooo many people hype up the dragons like crazy, but dragons were literally not problematic at all in gen 5. Except maybe Garchomp. But yknow, that was because of Sand Veil, and also, fuck Garchomp. Honestly, most of the dragons other than Multiscale Dragonite were decently low usage in OU, tbh. Salamence, Haxorus, and Hydreigon all saw kind of pitiful usage compared to what you might expect, in favor of weather mons, or the super bulky, multipurpose Dragonite.

 

IMO Fairy Type wasn't just about keeping Dragons in check. While I'm sure Dragons played a part in it, with Fairy allowing them to push the envelope for dragons a bit farther, IMO Fairy was largely a balancing factor for the other type changes they made in Gen 6. Namely, nerfing Steel by making it neutral to Dark and Ghost. Adding Fairy gave Steel more offensive viability to compensate for this nerf, and gave Dark another resistance, something that was sorely needed after removing Steel's resistance to it.

In a metagame without weather wars or any legendaries, I'm pretty sure dragons are gonna be pretty fuckin' nuts. I acknowledge this has nothing to do with the topic at hand but I wanted to weigh in on it anyway.

Link to comment
  • 0
7 minutes ago, Senile said:

so like, I just feel compelled to say this because I've seen sooooooo many people hype up the dragons like crazy, but dragons were literally not problematic at all in gen 5. Except maybe Garchomp. But yknow, that was because of Sand Veil, and also, fuck Garchomp. Honestly, most of the dragons other than Multiscale Dragonite were decently low usage in OU, tbh. Salamence, Haxorus, and Hydreigon all saw kind of pitiful usage compared to what you might expect, in favor of weather mons, or the super bulky, multipurpose Dragonite.

 

IMO Fairy Type wasn't just about keeping Dragons in check. While I'm sure Dragons played a part in it, with Fairy allowing them to push the envelope for dragons a bit farther, IMO Fairy was largely a balancing factor for the other type changes they made in Gen 6. Namely, nerfing Steel by making it neutral to Dark and Ghost. Adding Fairy gave Steel more offensive viability to compensate for this nerf, and gave Dark another resistance, something that was sorely needed after removing Steel's resistance to it.

I think fairy typing was a response to the power of dragons not only in gen 5 but gen 4 as well, but I do agree that there were other reasons for it being implemented. I was only using it as an example to show how the developers (gamefreak) weren't even able to respond to a percieved problem until years after it arose - in juxtaposition to what we have here. Point taken, though

Link to comment
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Senile said:

so like, I just feel compelled to say this because I've seen sooooooo many people hype up the dragons like crazy, but dragons were literally not problematic at all in gen 5. Except maybe Garchomp. But yknow, that was because of Sand Veil, and also, fuck Garchomp. Honestly, most of the dragons other than Multiscale Dragonite were decently low usage in OU, tbh. Salamence, Haxorus, and Hydreigon all saw kind of pitiful usage compared to what you might expect, in favor of weather mons, or the super bulky, multipurpose Dragonite.

 

IMO Fairy Type wasn't just about keeping Dragons in check. While I'm sure Dragons played a part in it, with Fairy allowing them to push the envelope for dragons a bit farther, IMO Fairy was largely a balancing factor for the other type changes they made in Gen 6. Namely, nerfing Steel by making it neutral to Dark and Ghost. Adding Fairy gave Steel more offensive viability to compensate for this nerf, and gave Dark another resistance, something that was sorely needed after removing Steel's resistance to it.

Hydreigon got pretty much outclassed by Latios and Mence/Haxorus by Garchomp in a way. Stuff like 4drag2mag would destroy OU in a meta without Heatran/Jirachi if their moves were left untouched.

 

Fairy type was added to both keep Dragons in check (Since in VGC a Dragon Gem Boosted Draco meteor had almost no switch ins) and to nerf fighting which was very very strong in gen5 VGC (I heard a rumor it was also added to nerf Heracross since the Japanese hate fighting it or something but it's probably BS, it would still slightly explain why fairy resists bug though)

 

Point is Gamefreak doesn't know how to balance at all and I'm sure everyone can agree on that, specially since their policy on nerfing things seems to be to break their legs.

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

Hydreigon got pretty much outclassed by Latios and Mence/Haxorus by Garchomp in a way. Stuff like 4drag2mag would destroy OU in a meta without Heatran/Jirachi if their moves were left untouched.

 

Fairy type was added to both keep Dragons in check (Since in VGC a Dragon Gem Boosted Draco meteor had almost no switch ins) and to nerf fighting which was very very strong in gen5 VGC (I heard a rumor it was also added to nerf Heracross since the Japanese hate fighting it or something but it's probably BS, it would still slightly explain why fairy resists bug though)

 

Point is Gamefreak doesn't know how to balance at all and I'm sure everyone can agree on that, specially since their policy on nerfing things seems to be to break their legs.

The Japanese actually do hate Heracross for some reason, lmao. Also, not arguing against Outrage or the dragons in OU right now, although I do think they're super overhyped, I was mostly talking about actual gen 5. (With that being said, LF my boy Jirachi)

 

A lot of gem moves were fucking dumb in VGC, but you're right about Draco Meteor; Of course, that's why they just removed gems.

 

Also, yeah, I forgot about fighting types, but that doesn't really conflict with what I said; Fairy was their swiss army knife for Gen 6 to try and balance out the type chart as much as possible in 1 type. Resistance to Dark/Bug/Fighting and an immunity to Dragon, some of the best offensive types, especially after Dark got it's steel resistance removed and Knock Off added, and a weakness to Poison/Steel, some of the worst offensive types, and a counterbalance to Steel's nerf.

Link to comment
  • 0
3 hours ago, Darkshade said:

I am genuinely not attempting to be a uguu

i appreciate it man for real

3 hours ago, Darkshade said:

The problem occurs when you have species/mechanics that are too powerful to be used in PvP circumstances; being able to use a particular species or an ability that is outright banned in PvP is going to sweep our PvE content just as easily (probably more easily) a majority of the time.

 

ok. wobu and dugtrio is banned because it isnt good sportsmanship to use trappers. they are not "OP" however wobbu is situationaly op as a revenge kill and get a poke or two then dies. dugtrio can trap and kill some pokemon and is a good revenge killer. however in pve they are never used. blissey is uber wall but i rarely ever see one in pve except occasionally in the tower where you can not heal for free.  you argument is true of salamance or dragonite but they are often overshadowed by starmie and alakazam with their good coverage and power and speed. it's like 

NxhEHcP.png

3 hours ago, Darkshade said:

It's outright inexcusably shitty design to allow something to be obtainable and then say "Well actually you can't use that", so we're trying to reduce this as much as possible.

And yes, then you could argue "Well what if you allow it in PvE" - and we could do that, but that doesn't accomplish the symmetry we're aiming for, nor does it say a lot about the density of our PvE gameplay.

im mean maybe but it isnt your design. and you could design the pve expecting people to have that level of power which you are doing already based off my time in e4 (i think i found trranz corpse). i mean why cant you just make pve a little bit harder and call it a day?

 

 

and to answer the genuine question.

everything i said but assuming you didnt read it mostly because for tiering their will be mistakes and far reaching consequences. pokemon at face value is simple but the deeeper you dig the more complicated it is. when you start messing around with the mechanics your changes wont just effect the few pokemon you are trying to effect but everything else too. by making these changes to balance one thing you will unbalance others. their will be mistake but testing for these mistakes is very difficult because of how much works goes into a update. making a tier'ing test is a lot less big of a deal then updates to the game to change move mechanics constantly. how do you think the conversation with kyu will be when the tier council says "hey we should test this thing it's maybe not broken but we arent sure" will go when it requires a game update? 

 

TL:DR it''s a mess and i do not think i am conveying how much of a mess it will be but it is. we're breaking the formula here to solve a problem without thinking about why the formula exist how it does.

 

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

Hydreigon got pretty much outclassed by Latios and Mence/Haxorus by Garchomp in a way. Stuff like 4drag2mag would destroy OU in a meta without Heatran/Jirachi if their moves were left untouched.

 

Fairy type was added to both keep Dragons in check (Since in VGC a Dragon Gem Boosted Draco meteor had almost no switch ins) and to nerf fighting which was very very strong in gen5 VGC (I heard a rumor it was also added to nerf Heracross since the Japanese hate fighting it or something but it's probably BS, it would still slightly explain why fairy resists bug though)

 

Point is Gamefreak doesn't know how to balance at all and I'm sure everyone can agree on that, specially since their policy on nerfing things seems to be to break their legs.

 

34 minutes ago, Senile said:

so like, I just feel compelled to say this because I've seen sooooooo many people hype up the dragons like crazy, but dragons were literally not problematic at all in gen 5. Except maybe Garchomp. But yknow, that was because of Sand Veil, and also, fuck Garchomp. Honestly, most of the dragons other than Multiscale Dragonite were decently low usage in OU, tbh. Salamence, Haxorus, and Hydreigon all saw kind of pitiful usage compared to what you might expect, in favor of weather mons, or the super bulky, multipurpose Dragonite.

 

IMO Fairy Type wasn't just about keeping Dragons in check. While I'm sure Dragons played a part in it, with Fairy allowing them to push the envelope for dragons a bit farther, IMO Fairy was largely a balancing factor for the other type changes they made in Gen 6. Namely, nerfing Steel by making it neutral to Dark and Ghost. Adding Fairy gave Steel more offensive viability to compensate for this nerf, and gave Dark another resistance, something that was sorely needed after removing Steel's resistance to it.

I have a question, is PokeMMO going to implement Fairy typing to comp? I am not sure, but I do not like the Fairy type personally because Dragons already had a check, the first thing that comes to mind is Starmie with Ice Beam or anything with Ice Beam. Some people might ask about Kingdra neutralising Ice due to it secondary type being Water. My answer is to deploy things with dragon claw like Choice Banded Flygon.

 

Despite what I said, my guess is that the devs would eventually implement Fairy type so they can appeal to a larger demographic of Pokemon fans. There are some people that absolutely love Sylveon and I think the development team is going to deliver in that regard. I cannot see a need for fairy types personally, but maybe Senile can enlighten me on the advantages to the Fairy type, but I do not see it.

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.