Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fat Alan
One thing that isn't addressed (not thing big of a deal) but would BL Pokemon have OU tags in front of their sets designed for OU? One can easily infer that a BL Pokemon would be used in OU primarily, and it seems rather silly to have OU tags on it. Obviously Uber tags would still be needed (if any BL pokemon have uber analsysises, im not sure and i dont care that much to check so 9.9).
|
Yeah, BL Pokemon have their analyses written exclusively for OU, so they will not need their set names prefixed with OU. Once BL, they are treated as OU Pokemon, just not used enough to be marked OU.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fat Alan
You are saying that, for instance, Kabutops' lead set would require a UU prefix for it? I think that is rather condecending (condesending?) to the userbase on this sight. While I know you had no malicous intentions much of the user base is aware that UU pokemon are for the UU tier. It makes sense and (imo) looks better if we leave UU sets for UU pokemon alone without tags, but give them OU tags. Especially since, odds are, the majority of usage for that pokemon will be in UU, and not OU. I support the idea of giving Ubers sets and OU sets (for UU mons) tags though because it does make it easier to search through.
|
I expected a lot of people would have this opinion, which is why I wanted discussion on the topic. I can honestly see it going either way, and I don't mind either. If many people agree with you, I feel that that's the way we should do it. PS: I do not intend any condescension with my OP.