This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is Charizard still going to be NU?

#41Mewtwo_soulPosted 11/3/2013 5:51:08 PM
Xenesis Xenon posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
By themselves they are not broken.

Complex = Implying multiple.

2 Factors vs. 30 +.


Which is complex? 30 +.

You're wrong, get over it.


Last I checked "two" is multiple. Or does smogon have alternate definitions of "multiple" and "singular" now?


Nice way to deflect the question and be a smart ass.

The purpose I'm stating is that there are far more figures with banning 30 Pokemon many which are not broken by themselves. (Magikarp for Gods sake has Swift Swim) than just banning a combo.

In this way they banned nothing because they are a factor by themselves. By themselves they are not broken.

so therefore it's ONE factor.


Because I could argue a BP team can make anything worthy of ubers, should they ban it and any Pokemon within a BP team to ubers now?

No. That's stupid.
---
Only insecure and ignorant people try to debase someone online based on their username.
#42EnlinoPosted 11/3/2013 5:59:38 PM
Mewtwo_soul posted...
Items are either banned or allowed in all tiers.


If Pikachu's Light Ball was banned from NU/RU/UU/BL and only allowed in OU. That wouldn't happen. That's complex banning.


Items are either allowed in all tiers (in regards to that Pokemon's specific tier) or they are banned.

So if Gengar is OU, even if Mega Gar was worse by some factor it couldn't go down to BL. If it's good enough it can be banned though just like Soul Dew, as Ubers is not actually a tier moreso than it is a banning label. (yes even though there is a format for it.)


So for instance:

Scyther without FS is not NU. It's still RU, if we made a ruling on Pokemon having items to specific tiers (bar Ubers or the specific tier that Pokemon is in)


We'd have to make exceptions like :


Scyther being allowed in NU with FS being banned to RU and on.


It just doesn't happen.


But even ubers has rules (no moody, for example) so it's not just a label. And it's not a complex ban because you aren't banning pokemon based on the item they're holding, just the item.

If you tried to do, say "Snorlax is UU with leftovers, but RU with quick claw" then yes, that would be a complex ban. But I'm suggesting two separate rulings: in this case, "Pinsir is NU" and "Pinsirite is OU".

It's been done before with Soul Dew, and while banning items to tiers like this isn't common, I think that's just because items that interact like this are rare (Soul Dew is the only one that matters before gen IV, since pikachu is NU even with light orb), not because "Pinsirite is OU" is a slippery slope that leads to ranking Sand Steam Tyranitar and Unnerve Tyranitar separately.
#43Mewtwo_soulPosted 11/3/2013 6:01:46 PM(edited)
Enlino posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
Items are either banned or allowed in all tiers.


If Pikachu's Light Ball was banned from NU/RU/UU/BL and only allowed in OU. That wouldn't happen. That's complex banning.


Items are either allowed in all tiers (in regards to that Pokemon's specific tier) or they are banned.

So if Gengar is OU, even if Mega Gar was worse by some factor it couldn't go down to BL. If it's good enough it can be banned though just like Soul Dew, as Ubers is not actually a tier moreso than it is a banning label. (yes even though there is a format for it.)


So for instance:

Scyther without FS is not NU. It's still RU, if we made a ruling on Pokemon having items to specific tiers (bar Ubers or the specific tier that Pokemon is in)


We'd have to make exceptions like :


Scyther being allowed in NU with FS being banned to RU and on.


It just doesn't happen.


But even ubers has rules (no moody, for example) so it's not just a label. And it's not a complex ban because you aren't banning pokemon based on the item they're holding, just the item.

If you tried to do, say "Snorlax is UU with leftovers, but RU with quick claw" then yes, that would be a complex ban. But I'm suggesting two separate rulings: in this case, "Pinsir is NU" and "Pinsirite is OU".

It's been done before with Soul Dew, and while banning items to tiers like this isn't common, I think that's just because items that interact like this are rare (Soul Dew is the only one that matters before gen IV, since pikachu is NU even with light orb), not because "Pinsirite is OU" is a slippery slope that leads to ranking Sand Steam Tyranitar and Unnerve Tyranitar separately.



Again there is still a different concept here in my opinion at least. Item bans always end up in Ubers. I'm assuming it hypothetically could be bumped down to other tiers, but I've never seen such a thing. Which is why I'm stating it like that:


For instance if Latios/as was UU, Soul Dew still wouldn't be OU.
---
Only insecure and ignorant people try to debase someone online based on their username.
#44Xenesis XenonPosted 11/3/2013 6:07:04 PM
Mewtwo_soul posted...
Xenesis Xenon posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
By themselves they are not broken.

Complex = Implying multiple.

2 Factors vs. 30 +.


Which is complex? 30 +.

You're wrong, get over it.


Last I checked "two" is multiple. Or does smogon have alternate definitions of "multiple" and "singular" now?


Nice way to deflect the question and be a smart ass.

The purpose I'm stating is that there are far more figures with banning 30 Pokemon many which are not broken by themselves. (Magikarp for Gods sake has Swift Swim) than just banning a combo.

In this way they banned nothing because they are a factor by themselves. By themselves they are not broken.

so therefore it's ONE factor.


Because I could argue a BP team can make anything worthy of ubers, should they ban it and any Pokemon within a BP team to ubers now?

No. That's stupid.


I'm being a smart arse because your terminology is contradicting your statements.

The combo of swift swim and drizzle is a complex ban. It is not banning one thing, it is banning two things at the same time, only if they are used together. It is logically equivalent to saying something like "Tackle is okay, Normal Types are okay, but Normal Types with Tackle are banned." It would be like saying "Throws are not banned, unless you're Akuma. Akuma + Throws are banned."

Again, that brings me to my other point - why not ban Drizzle instead?
---
www.warsworldnews.com - Wars World News - The most chilled AW community on the web.
#45Mewtwo_soulPosted 11/3/2013 6:07:46 PM
Meh, I remember what I should have stated.




The reason why it wouldn't probably work that way is like this:

In Smogon analysis the Pokemon is given a single analysis. This analysis includes items/options/etc.


Under this Mega stones are just that, other options. So unless they were to make a whole seperate analysis, it's unlikely Pinsir would be NU while Pinsirite would be OU. As you require Pinsir in the first place (which means usage) for that tier.


Because Mega Pinsir is still Pinsir, and unlike other forms it has to be established with base form.

So unless they do decide to make a seperate analysis (which they've already ruled against) it's unlikely.

Is it possible? Certainly. Likely? No. As it would be under options, and if its listed for NU, well then Pinsirite wouldn't be able to be listed in that category.

Either way I'm going to play some MW2. So Meh.
---
Only insecure and ignorant people try to debase someone online based on their username.
#46Mewtwo_soulPosted 11/3/2013 6:10:29 PM
Xenesis Xenon posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
Xenesis Xenon posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
By themselves they are not broken.

Complex = Implying multiple.

2 Factors vs. 30 +.


Which is complex? 30 +.

You're wrong, get over it.


Last I checked "two" is multiple. Or does smogon have alternate definitions of "multiple" and "singular" now?


Nice way to deflect the question and be a smart ass.

The purpose I'm stating is that there are far more figures with banning 30 Pokemon many which are not broken by themselves. (Magikarp for Gods sake has Swift Swim) than just banning a combo.

In this way they banned nothing because they are a factor by themselves. By themselves they are not broken.

so therefore it's ONE factor.


Because I could argue a BP team can make anything worthy of ubers, should they ban it and any Pokemon within a BP team to ubers now?

No. That's stupid.


I'm being a smart arse because your terminology is contradicting your statements.

The combo of swift swim and drizzle is a complex ban. It is not banning one thing, it is banning two things at the same time, only if they are used together. It is logically equivalent to saying something like "Tackle is okay, Normal Types are okay, but Normal Types with Tackle are banned." It would be like saying "Throws are not banned, unless you're Akuma. Akuma + Throws are banned."

Again, that brings me to my other point - why not ban Drizzle instead?


Because you're still banning more factors. Than the inverse.



Look at it like this.

Is drizzle OP? No.

Is Swift Swim? No.

Together they are is quite different from a simple Blaziken example.

In the Blaziken example it's one Pokemon being banned. ONE FACTOR.

In this case, it's one factor being banned. If you ban Drizzle you have to take a Pokemon and ban part of it instead of banning Politoed instead.

Which Politoed by itself isn't banned. Let alone Kyogre isn't banned just because it has Drizzle.


You want them to incorrectly ban something for the wrong incentive. That's not how it works.
---
Only insecure and ignorant people try to debase someone online based on their username.
#47Mewtwo_soulPosted 11/3/2013 6:15:03 PM(edited)
One more post before I go to MW2:



To Xe:



Machamp is not banned with No Guard. Yet in previous gens it could get Fissure.



In the example provided, They've already done combo bans, as Machamps + No Guard + Fissure is banned. (Even if it isn't legal just go with this hypothetical example: Or hell : Articuno + Mind Reader + Sheer Cold)


Machamp is still used. Same too as the DrizzleSwim ban. The combo itself (in this case ability + Attack) are broken. In the other, Drizzle by themselves/Swim aer not banned initially as they are not broken in either regard. Nor should they be.


Unlike Fissure which already has OHKO moves banned.
---
Only insecure and ignorant people try to debase someone online based on their username.
#48Xenesis XenonPosted 11/3/2013 6:24:40 PM
You don't need to ban No Guard/Fissure/Machamp, because Fissure by itself was banned, so with or without that combo, you couldn't do it anyway.

Fissure banned = Simple Ban. You've banned precisely one thing. No combo.

Mind Reader/Sheer Cold/Articuno? Again, Sheer Cold was already banned. No combo.

Not to mention that the Evasion clause banned several pokemon for Snow Cloak and Sand Veil before they got their Dream World abilities (regardless of the fact that Sandslash, Cacturne or Glaceon are terrible), so that excuse for not banning an ability (either Swift Swim or Drizzle) doesn't fly anyway.

At the end of the day, I'm not going to change anything, but saying "no complex bans" and then having complex bans in your abided by ruleset is pretty hypocritical.
---
www.warsworldnews.com - Wars World News - The most chilled AW community on the web.