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

I wish GF worked with Smogon

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon X
  3. I wish GF worked with Smogon

User Info: IcyBlaze_XZ

IcyBlaze_XZ
4 years ago#71
Bogmire216 posted...
IcyBlaze_XZ posted...
Smogon's been falling rapidly downhill with a bullet ever since they started banning regular non-legendary-600+ BST pokemon.

Garchomp, Thundurus, Excadrill, banning a starter pokemon instead of just banning his speed boost version, etc.


since when does a pokemon having an ingame legend behind it have anything to do with it's competitive viability or brokenness? Would it suddenly be okay to ban Excadril if Gamefreak decided to write an ingame backstory about it, place it in it's own cave, and label it "legendary"? If it's broken it's broken, legendary 600+ stats or not (though I do agree they should have just banned speed boost, that's another topic for another discussion)

just sayin



Because Garchomp, Thundurus, Salamence, Excadrill, etc's "centralization" of the metagame aren't even in the same literal league as what as good Kyogre, Groudon, Mewtwo, Zekrom, etc would do to a metagame.

Because of their stat totals and distribution, the effect a "real" uber has on the metagame isn't even close to what Thunurus and Salamence did, and it could be heavily argued that sandstorm and swift swim teams (even post drizzle) in general are more/at least as overcentralizing as having to deal with Salamence or Garchop or Thundurus. And then you get into playing favorites and deciding why this overcentralizing thing is ok but this one is no good.

No one blinks an eye or puts up any complaint when a box art legendary is moved to ubers, but when Thundurus, Garchomp, and Blaziken got banned from normal play? However justifiable it was depending on which group you ask, there was an outroar everywhere.
b

User Info: 42Bladez

42Bladez
4 years ago#72
@GolurkCanFly

Sure. I'm not the one who came up with this design.
SSBB Friend Code 5198-2077-0151 Area: NE U.S.A
Name: Missing Number Nick:MISNO

User Info: Twilight_Sonata

Twilight_Sonata
4 years ago#73
42Bladez posted...
If you're going to make claims like this, you're going to have to provide evidence. Burden of proof's on you.

It's pretty darn obvious if you think through it logically. Let's try an analogy. Let's say, I dunno... you publish books. People like reading the books you publish, and that's great! Some people, though, are disappointed that you print your books using a printer with outdated machinery that produces a lot of waste and is horrible for the environment. With only minimal effort and for essentially the same cost, you could just use a different printer whose machinery is much more up to date and whose waste products are far more easily manageable. Some of the people that like reading the books you publish would really appreciate this! The others? Why, they don't care at all and won't even notice the difference. So, the solution should be obvious.

Sloth9230 posted...
Except all the old pokemon would remain trash and be crushed by in-game teams such as the E4 and Champions.

Not necessarily true. Older Pokemon have gotten buffs before, and they can get buffs again. They can even resort to he dreaded recalculation of base stats if it comes to that. And, of course, I think everybody realizes that it's unrealistic to have every Pokemon be competitively viable, but it's not difficult to make every Pokemon at least unique and viable in-game, even if only for non-battle purposes like having Luvdiscs produce a heart scale whenever it levels up if it's not holding another item. And, again, I think it bears clarifying that I don't think anybody wants competitive concerns to dominate the Pokemon creation process, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to pay attention to somebody more competitively minded who can look at something and determine whether its immediately obviously overpowered or whether they can determine so through some paytesting.

IcyBlaze_XZ posted...
banning a starter pokemon instead of just banning his speed boost version, etc.

The issue with that is that it becomes a bit of a slippery slope, and it's not too hard to see why if you just dig a little deeper. If you allow Blaziken just as long as it doesn't have Speed Boost, then it's not long before folks ask that this Pokemon be allowed as long as it doesn't hold this one item, or that that Pokemon be allowed as long as it doesn't know that one move, or that this other Pokemon be allowed as long as it doesn't have a nature that boosts a particular stat, or that that other Pokemon be allowed as long as it doesn't have any EVs in a particular stat, or that this one Pokemon be allowed as long as it has minimum IVs in a particular stat, or that that one Pokemon be allowed as long as it's not above this level. It can get real silly real fast, and there's very little way to be logically consistent about it, unfortunately.

User Info: omega4692

omega4692
4 years ago#74
42Bladez posted...
Alright, time to inject some time-tested knowledge about how games like this are designed.

Wizards of the Coast groups Magic the Gathering players into three broad categories: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. These archetypes are easily applicable to Pokemon.

Timmy plays to experience something. Timmy enjoys flash and size. When selecting Pokemon, Timmy would pick out ones that he/she thinks look cool or tough or have special "legendary" status.

Johnny plays as a form of self-expression. Johnny is the type of player who mulls over creating a team that's not necessarily the best but the most unique, interesting, or suited to his style. Johnny wants to win, but he/she wants to win HIS way, with his own unique team.

Spike plays to win, plain and simple. He/she will pick Pokemon that he/she and/or the community have deemed the best, keeps track of the latest strategies, and will involve themselves in shaping the greater metagame.

---------------

So, which of the three are most important? According to WoTC, none of them. Whenever they design a set, they try to make cards for each of the three archetypes in mind. Ironically, it is SPIKE, not Timmy or Johnny, that it is easy to make cards for.

It's the same for Pokemon. Game Freak deliberately sets out to make Pokemon that appeal to all three groups. If ANY of the three groups gets the ultimate say in the design process, the entire game will be thrown out of balance. Each side has their own problems to deal with. Timmy would strategically dumb down the game. Johnny would try to make every strategy equally viable. And Spike would either create a constant power creep or a stagnant, unchanging, metagame. The former is bad for the metagame as a whole and the latter is bad for business.

All three groups must be accounted for, and I purport that Game Freak is doing a fine job maintaining this. I have reason to suspect that most of the Pokemon they introduced last gen that made OU tier (such as Haxorus, Conkeldurr, Ferrothorn, and Volcarona) were designed to by Game Freak.


This.

User Info: Twilight_Sonata

Twilight_Sonata
4 years ago#75
42Bladez posted...
Alright, time to inject some time-tested knowledge about how games like this are designed.

Wizards of the Coast groups Magic the Gathering players into three broad categories: Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. These archetypes are easily applicable to Pokemon.

Timmy plays to experience something. Timmy enjoys flash and size. When selecting Pokemon, Timmy would pick out ones that he/she thinks look cool or tough or have special "legendary" status.

Johnny plays as a form of self-expression. Johnny is the type of player who mulls over creating a team that's not necessarily the best but the most unique, interesting, or suited to his style. Johnny wants to win, but he/she wants to win HIS way, with his own unique team.

Spike plays to win, plain and simple. He/she will pick Pokemon that he/she and/or the community have deemed the best, keeps track of the latest strategies, and will involve themselves in shaping the greater metagame.

---------------

So, which of the three are most important? According to WoTC, none of them. Whenever they design a set, they try to make cards for each of the three archetypes in mind. Ironically, it is SPIKE, not Timmy or Johnny, that it is easy to make cards for.

It's the same for Pokemon. Game Freak deliberately sets out to make Pokemon that appeal to all three groups. If ANY of the three groups gets the ultimate say in the design process, the entire game will be thrown out of balance. Each side has their own problems to deal with. Timmy would strategically dumb down the game. Johnny would try to make every strategy equally viable. And Spike would either create a constant power creep or a stagnant, unchanging, metagame. The former is bad for the metagame as a whole and the latter is bad for business.

All three groups must be accounted for, and I purport that Game Freak is doing a fine job maintaining this. I have reason to suspect that most of the Pokemon they introduced last gen that made OU tier (such as Haxorus, Conkeldurr, Ferrothorn, and Volcarona) were designed to by Game Freak.

What this seems to miss, though, is that this isn't an either-either-or question. There's not one side that loses so the other side can win. It doesn't have to be a balancing act. You don't have to sacrifice any for the sake of any other. We can have it all.

User Info: Xenesis Xenon

Xenesis Xenon
4 years ago#76
Twilight_Sonata posted...
What this seems to miss, though, is that this isn't an either-either-or question. There's not one side that loses so the other side can win. It doesn't have to be a balancing act. You don't have to sacrifice any for the sake of any other. We can have it all.


I challenge you to name one game series that consistently hits all of those notes without one sacrificing one for another.
www.warsworldnews.com - Wars World News - The most chilled AW community on the web.

User Info: 42Bladez

42Bladez
4 years ago#77
Twilight_Sonata posted...

What this seems to miss, though, is that this isn't an either-either-or question. There's not one side that loses so the other side can win. It doesn't have to be a balancing act. You don't have to sacrifice any for the sake of any other. We can have it all.


You're wrong. You can't have it all. It will ALWAYS be a balancing act. Wizards almost killed Magic when they forgot this and made the cards for Spike. TWICE.

They did this in a set called Mirrodin. The result was literally this: a four-deck metagame with a broken deck and three decks that counter it. People left the game in DROVES and all because they were too busy making the sets for themselves and not for a broader audience.

Oh, and your comment above about a printing press? That analogy falls flat on its face because you are talking about a situation in which the alternative is STRICTLY and OBJECTIVELY better. Such things don't exist in Pokemon and other games like this, simply because people have different tastes.
SSBB Friend Code 5198-2077-0151 Area: NE U.S.A
Name: Missing Number Nick:MISNO

User Info: The_Undying_84

The_Undying_84
4 years ago#78
They ought to get some outside input, that's for sure.
PSN: TheUndying84

User Info: omega4692

omega4692
4 years ago#79
42Bladez posted...
Twilight_Sonata posted...

What this seems to miss, though, is that this isn't an either-either-or question. There's not one side that loses so the other side can win. It doesn't have to be a balancing act. You don't have to sacrifice any for the sake of any other. We can have it all.


You're wrong. You can't have it all. It will ALWAYS be a balancing act. Wizards almost killed Magic when they forgot this and made the cards for Spike. TWICE.

They did this in a set called Mirrodin. The result was literally this: a four-deck metagame with a broken deck and three decks that counter it. People left the game in DROVES and all because they were too busy making the sets for themselves and not for a broader audience.


This. I remember when they had to ban Jace, the Mind Sculptor because he was too good. You can't cater to one side and expect the others to keep up.

User Info: dwdwdw6

dwdwdw6
4 years ago#80
I get the feeling Tc is trolling and yall are feeding him.


Carry on :)
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon X
  3. I wish GF worked with Smogon

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived