Recent content by CooolTrainer

Tera is one of a few factors in even if it takes skill to use. It inherently makes the meta unpredictable. I would love to be surprised, but I don’t think the Moon ban will help much tbh. There’s so much power creep I think offensive teams will always have a significant advantage over slower...

IIRC Vert had some pretty intense posts just calling everyone bad lol. You sound pretty silly tbh. Voicing dissent in a public forum is like the original way to create change or have issues addressed. Finch and other council members answer questions here all the time, so it’s quite obvious...

I don’t think it means the meta is lost or anything. I just do not see how Kyurem, about as close to a broken without being broken Pokemon, could not be banned and anything else could be. “If you don’t like the meta, don’t play” is a pretty weak/unfair argument you can just say that to anyone...

I don’t see the point of suspecting anything for the rest of the gen. There’s a 0% chance anything is banned. If the council suspects a Mon it’s just to feel like they’re doing something.

Quick! what’s a Kyurem switch in? Oops wrong set

Have you or the council discussed creating a thread that’s exclusively for game play discussion/improving play? The OU thread used to have some of that, but now it’s just the same people arguing. This gen has a very high skill floor and the community just seems to be people complaining or top...

Will this realistically have any effect on the meta game? Outside of offense being good.

If content creators are involved like he said, I imagine it’s something that only high level players will actually participate in/benefit from like a tournament where a bunch of them make videos or one on one interviews in a podcast type situation.

I think you’re misunderstanding me, that’s probably my fault. I don’t think it’s a godlike rebuttal at all. But that’s my point actually, the only non arbitrary number is 50%+1 and the answer as to why it’s not seems to be just because people agree it needs to be more. I was just curious about...

Fair enough! Not so much upset at the concept but I didn’t really see it as necessary. Would be interested to see next gen.

This doesn’t answer my question. 60% also is not a supermajority. It’s not half of the playerbase voting it’s half of highly knowledgeable people, who we want to listen to. Is 59% not more than just half?

I even don’t necessarily feel negatively towards it, I didn’t vote but I wouldn’t have voted Han on Gliscor. I could be swayed the other way with more explanation. I just think on its face, the policy sort of contradicts the intention of suspect reqs.

“Like, if a narrow majority of the qualified playerbase votes in favor of something that happens then that's realistically the majority of the wider playerbase affected by an outcome they aren't aligned with.” Can you clarify what you mean here? Are you saying if the majority less than 60% of...

Interesting. I would like to hear reasoning for not 50+1 besides “it’s important”. I’m not so much concerned about the results of the Gliscor suspect or really any other suspect besides the fact that the minority of qualified players voted ban.

Does any council member have a legitimate answer as to why 60% is the number we use for bans? I get that banning a pokemon should be taken seriously, but 60% isn’t actually a super-majority, it’s 66%. Technically any number besides 50+1 and 66% are arbitrary. I imagine the suspect test...