It is controversial in my eyes because Pokemon games offer you a chance to build your team. If you catch a few Pokemon, train them evenly and then pit your one underleveled Pokemon against a gym leader you should not expect good results
Please point out where I actually spoke in favor of that strategy.
Sweeping all major battles is not a requirement for higher ranks (even S one) as can be easily seen in other tier lists
Never said it is? However, sweeping all or most major battles absolutely is a very good reason to be in a high tier.
Refusing to admit that Pokemon can be in B tier because it has three bad match ups (out of ~20 major battles, counting Kanto) is ridiculous
Actually, 3/20 major battles keeping you out of A or S is what's ridiculous. The hilarious part is that Geodude literally gets bent against more Gym Leaders than Cyndaquil does - Chuck, Pryce, Clair, Erika, Misty, Sabrina, Brock, Will, Koga, and Bruno are all bad matchups for you. That's way more than 3 major battles, yet Geodude is in A. In contrast, Typhlosion can either put in major work against most of these opponents or even flat out solo. Geodude is useful against the E4 but is limited to picking off specific mons while Typhlo can basically solo entire members herself.
Also, you mean only two, right? Just Chuck and Clair? As people have shown, even
Whitney isn't necessarily a bad matchup.
I have noticed that your methodology requires having a great knowledge of the game you play (knowing what trainer gives you what items, knowing where to train up before each gym leader, beelining for specific items and being aware of glitches) and grinding to match gym leader's levels
Well, we're the one making the tier list for the benefit of fans who don't know so much.
Why should we not have a great knowledge of the game we play? What business do we have tiering Pokemon if we don't?
The former is obviously controversial because some people state that these lists are for casuals who do not know all those things I listed
Cool, which is why we can...teach them? Guide them?
What's the point of a tier list if it doesn't give them an accurate perspective of how good their Pokemon is ingame?
The latter is disliked by people in general because you are wasting time
And you're not wasting time by getting your Pokemon defeated by opponents they could have otherwise beaten?
You're not wasting money by using way more healing items or X-Items than you would have needed otherwise? Or does that suddenly not matter?
We can penalize Pokemon who need too much time to be strong, you do know that, right? Do you think I'm saying we should do nothing?
Am I not the one who's been telling you that Stantler's low exp growth is why they should be in C, not B? Am I not one of those casting doubt on the ranks of the big Normal-types specifically because of how much time it takes to train them and how that hurts your other teammates?
Also, newsflash: you DON'T need to waste time on grinding in the wild or anything - and neither do you need to waste money or resources like Potions - provided you actually increase your Pokemon team size incrementally. You need to be realistic here, fam. If you're going to penalize Pokemon for needing time to show their true worth, literally every single one is garbage. Even Totodile and Abra don't destroy everyone they come across automatically, they need investment in the form of grinding experience and healing items and what not, and they're in the top tier. Your S-Class Feraligatr arguably has LESS team soloing potential as part of a 4-mon ensemble than Typhlosion does, for crying out loud.
Please be realistic.
In casual playthroughs, you won't battle with gym leaders on equal terms - that's just not possible with level curve in GSC. I battle every single trainer in these games while running from random encounters. This was my team progression in Crystal once
Cool, except...I did precisely the thing you said is impossible. It can be done. I have done it. People in earlier tier lists have done it.
And yes, I also battle every single trainer in these games. My entire team made it to L40 and above, whether I had Trade-Fearow in my team or the experience hog Stantler, before I fought the Elite Four. Clearly there's something you're missing that I'm not.
My levels are not against the rules presented in the original post of this thread.
Maybe we should change the rules then. It makes no sense to fight opponents at a massive disadvantage
or advantage.
As for my Stantler videos - they are a realistic approach to how the game might turn up. 21 level against Morty already requires 6 level ups. Having a higher level necessitates clearing all routes around the town with just Stantler alone. I could have just said "well, Stantler is a bad match up against Morty" and move on, however I actually bothered to check it and proved that it provides help in battle. I have no idea why you insist on repeating that it doesn't since it reliably takes care of Jasmine's Magnemites, Chuck's Primeape and Morty's Gastly+Haunter
Yeah? Quilava can beat Primeape too and Typhlosion (even Quilava tbh) can beat Clair's Dragonair.
TL;DR: In my opinion, your methodology to these tier lists (this one and RSE one) is wrong because you do not understand what casual and efficient means
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to fix your terminology. Your idea of ''efficient'' considers time the only important resource. Your idea of ''casual'' means going through the game blindly instead of letting players know what they can do to do well.
Being too focused on trivial matters like Pokemon's performance against one specific battle (Geodude/Cyndaquil vs Falkner here and Torchic/Combusken vs Roxanne in RSE thread)
I'm not being ''too focused'' at all? I just said that Torchic/Combusken should be a neutral matchup and it's one that others supported.
Random Passerby, if you think that I am taking it too far with Aegon, let me know. I won't hide the fact that the whole situation pisses me off so it's probably visible in my posts.
Yeah, the feeling's mutual.