Metagame 1v1 Metagame Discussion

I would totally quickban Dynamax.
We never had something this centralizing. I currently played a total of 74 gen8 1v1 ladder games, which is super low considering that we have a new gen and the hype there was. In the 74 games I never saw a game without Dynamax and in General I have never seen a Gen8 1v1 battle without Dynamax, which on its own is hilarious. Banning the best abusers isnt a way for me because that wont Change anything. Doubled HP in 1v1 is just stupid and mostly the battle wont last Long enough to get back from Dynamax/to normal HP. I had more fun playing my second year of Gen7 1v1 with a ladder full of memes. With that being said pls ban this so we can constructively build and have People like me playing gen8 like the Nintendo Switch games derserve it.
 
Gonna say, a quickban looks in order. Dynamax has pretty much proven to invalidate the main focus of building and preparing in 1v1, and made everything overly centralized about certain abusers of the mechanic. It also invalidates a lot of strategy, since pretty much every Max move is superior to regular moves, and everything can get it. I feel that the match no longer relies on building, and that everything hinges on whether you can predict a Sub, which isn't really something I'd like to see in a healthy metagame.
 
I’m all for Quickbanning dynamax

This mechanic is very restrictive of the entire metagame, removing a lot of possible variety that sets could have with just the basic 19 max moves and substitute constituting 95% of every move used during a battle. If you look at the sets that have been created during the dynamax meta, most are basically the same set with different coverage moves. Almost every set runs a way to stall out dynamax + random moves to attempt to take out as much as you can.
Ultimately a dynamax meta is not fun. Isn’t the whole reason we play this game to have fun?
 
Right now the majority of the people hate dynamax and want it to be quickbanned.
However, most broken mons like alcremie and grimsnarl are really bugged and will be fixed.
As a result, I think we should wait a bit, let the meta develop, and see if the bugs be fixed and then make this decision.
Also, the common argument that dynamax makes everything 50/50 is not true. I have proven this many times with my slow rhyperior.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I say that we should QUICKBAN Dynamax because it is already broken. Doing a suspect test just gives more time for people to abuse the best Dynamax users. Dynamax takes out a lot of fun. What use is a metagame that isn't fun because people are using broken Dynamax pokémon? You could make the best decision in a hypothetical scenario and lose because they used their Dynamax. I DEFINATELY think QUICKBAN.
 

Cantius

I COULD BE BANNED!
Right now the majority of the people hate dynamax and want it to be quickbanned.
However, most broken mons like alcremie and grimsnarl are really bugged and will be fixed.
As a result, I think we should wait a bit, let the meta develop, and see if the bugs be fixed and then make this decision.
If Dynamax is the inherent problem, what's the point of waiting for the strongest abusers to be fixed?
 

Cantius

I COULD BE BANNED!
How is dynamax the inherent problem. I only said that the worst abusers are bugs.
If Dynamax is not the inherent problem, the strongest abusers are the biggest problem. Why don't we just ban the strongest abusers, then? Or maybe there's no problem at all in either Dynamax or the strongest abusers, which means that we shouldn't ban anything.
 
If Dynamax is not the inherent problem, the strongest abusers are the biggest problem. Why don't we just ban the strongest abusers, then? Or maybe there's no problem at all in either Dynamax or the strongest abusers, which means that we shouldn't ban anything.
First, I was saying how the strongest abusers are bugs, and are not that strong in reality. However if you would like, we can temporarily ban them.
 

Arai

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
If Dynamax is not the inherent problem, the strongest abusers are the biggest problem. Why don't we just ban the strongest abusers, then? Or maybe there's no problem at all in either Dynamax or the strongest abusers, which means that we shouldn't ban anything.
I'm sorry, what? The supposedly strongest abusers are not why Dynamax needs to go, it's just how broken the mechanic is in general. There's an endless amount of 50/50s and guessing games with your opponent as to if you should Dynamax or not, if they are subbing or not. A lot of people don't find it fun when a meta literally consists of bulky offense as in Max Moves + Max Guard (all status moves becoming max guard). Items in 1v1 are now nowhere near as relevant as in previous gens and now are used to counter specific mons, which makes at team preview one hell of a guessing game. No one wants to play a metagame where a lot of matchups aren't even guaranteed wins and require more guessing as to what your opponent is even using. I serously don't see how you're okay with Dynamax.
 

Cantius

I COULD BE BANNED!
I'm sorry, what? The supposedly strongest abusers are not why Dynamax needs to go, it's just how broken the mechanic is in general. There's an endless amount of 50/50s and guessing games with your opponent as to if you should Dynamax or not, if they are subbing or not. A lot of people don't find it fun when a meta literally consists of bulky offense as in Max Moves + Max Guard (all status moves becoming max guard). Items in 1v1 are now nowhere near as relevant as in previous gens and now are used to counter specific mons, which makes at team preview one hell of a guessing game. No one wants to play a metagame where a lot of matchups aren't even guaranteed wins and require more guessing as to what your opponent is even using. I serously don't see how you're okay with Dynamax.
Out of context, read my post again. It was a response to maxy's proposal to wait for the strongest abusers to have their code fixed.
 

D2TheW

CAP 28 Playtest Winner
Right now the majority of the people hate dynamax and want it to be quickbanned.
However, most broken mons like alcremie and grimsnarl are really bugged and will be fixed.
As a result, I think we should wait a bit, let the meta develop, and see if the bugs be fixed and then make this decision.
Also, the common argument that dynamax makes everything 50/50 is not true. I have proven this many times with my slow rhyperior.
Except the issue that most people have is not the abusers but the mechanic of dynamaxing itself. The reasons have already been adequately explained in many posts but here's the short version: It's incredibly overcentralizing, stifles creativity, leads to a lot of 50/50s, isn't fun and adds nothing of value to the meta. There are other reasons too but these appear to be the main ones. The topic of abusers like Alcremie or Grimmsnarl hasn't really been mentioned (except in brief parts in a few posts including mine) because they really aren't the issue. It's like arguing that minimize should be allowed because we can just ban Chansey. It's missing the point entirely.

Also, stating that the 50/50 argument is false and justifying it with one example, of which you provided neither a set nor replays to demonstrate said set, really isn't a good argument.
 
We don't want one liners,
Out of context, read my post again. It was a response to maxy's proposal to wait for the strongest abusers to have their code fixed.
First, I was saying how the strongest abusers are bugs, and are not that strong in reality. However if you would like, we can temporarily ban them.
If Dynamax is the inherent problem, what's the point of waiting for the strongest abusers to be fixed?
If Dynamax is the inherent problem, what's the point of waiting for the strongest abusers to be fixed?

Guys, plz stop cluttering the thread thx
 
I'm sorry, what? The supposedly strongest abusers are not why Dynamax needs to go, it's just how broken the mechanic is in general. There's an endless amount of 50/50s and guessing games with your opponent as to if you should Dynamax or not, if they are subbing or not. A lot of people don't find it fun when a meta literally consists of bulky offense as in Max Moves + Max Guard (all status moves becoming max guard). Items in 1v1 are now nowhere near as relevant as in previous gens and now are used to counter specific mons, which makes at team preview one hell of a guessing game. No one wants to play a metagame where a lot of matchups aren't even guaranteed wins and require more guessing as to what your opponent is even using. I serously don't see how you're okay with Dynamax.
Building upon what is said here, it’s not just the strongest abusers which are the problem. It’s the mechanic in general. I suddenly realised I’m just repeating what was said here not building on it.

Anyway yeah, the strongest technique of beating Dynamax these days is subbing, and if they don’t dynamax then it’s simply down to mind games and 50/50s to determine the win. While I’m normally all for luck deciding the winner every time, 1v1 is primarily a game of skill (is it just me getting a sense of deja vu here). Dynamax just takes the skill element out of it, replacing all your sneaking ingenious move slots with for power shots, making it more like a game of who’s got the higher speed stat and the higher attack stat. If it’s not raw power determining the outcome, it’s Zarel who can stall better, or who can get the dynamax timing exactly right. Even simple wins like Grimmsnarl vs Dragapult can be put down to Substitute luck.

I have seriously run out of things to say and I don’t even know what the heck I’m talking about here so I’ll stop :blobthinking:

Guys, plz stop cluttering the thread thx
This man is a genius
 
i still dont know if it should be banned or not yet since i have been playing for a short period of time.\
however,i can think of 2 mons at the top of my head that got affected by dynamax
:mimikyu:
this guy can curse stall you the same way the previous gen,except he is more annoying,curse d1 and disguise breaks then sub until u r low then max and max guard.
:excadrill:
a good counter to mimikyu btw.anyway,exca has max rock slide paired with sand force and he can destroy alot of things,not to mention having scarf in his base form.
(also when r we gonna talk about gmax)
sorry for the short post i just had nothing to say but i felt like saying something anyway xd
 
i still dont know if it should be banned or not yet since i have been playing for a short period of time.\
however,i can think of 2 mons at the top of my head that got affected by dynamax
:mimikyu:
this guy can curse stall you the same way the previous gen,except he is more annoying,curse d1 and disguise breaks then sub until u r low then max and max guard.
:excadrill:
a good counter to mimikyu btw.anyway,exca has max rock slide paired with sand force and he can destroy alot of things,not to mention having scarf in his base form.
(also when r we gonna talk about gmax)
sorry for the short post i just had nothing to say but i felt like saying something anyway xd
mimikyu is much worse in the non dynamax meta(it only needs protect anywayz). Without flying dmax moves to boost speed and then killing, it will turn into the reason it was banned in the first place.
 
Except the issue that most people have is not the abusers but the mechanic of dynamaxing itself. The reasons have already been adequately explained in many posts but here's the short version: It's incredibly overcentralizing, stifles creativity, leads to a lot of 50/50s, isn't fun and adds nothing of value to the meta. There are other reasons too but these appear to be the main ones. The topic of abusers like Alcremie or Grimmsnarl hasn't really been mentioned (except in brief parts in a few posts including mine) because they really aren't the issue. It's like arguing that minimize should be allowed because we can just ban Chansey. It's missing the point entirely.

Also, stating that the 50/50 argument is false and justifying it with one example, of which you provided neither a set nor replays to demonstrate said set, really isn't a good argument.
my set is my rhyperior set:
asian (Rhyperior) @ Weakness Policy
Ability: Solid Rock
Shiny: Yes
EVs: 144 HP / 252 Atk / 104 SpD / 8 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Earthquake
- Rock Wrecker
- Heat Crash
- Iron Tail

this is a replay of me beating a dragapult who used sub to bait my dynamax and then attacked me which i still won even when he crit
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen81v1-1019699957
 
Quickban. Too over-centralizing for a style of play like 1v1. It limits what moves one can use, and goes far and beyond promoting a purely bulky offense metagame, putting all types of stall and hyper-offense 6 feet under. OHKO-ing a dynamaxed bulky offense pokemon is a tall feat to ask, even for hyper-offense, and surviving a dynamax hit when you cannot afford to dynamax or else lose your stalling moves is an even taller feat.

The metagame needs stall, bulky offense, hyper-offense, and everything in between in order to thrive. With dynamax, it'll just stagnate as the same pokemon appear over and over, doing the exact same things.
 

Rosa

twist
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
I wholeheartedly don't believe it should be a mechanic of the game that is to blame for a meta becoming unfavorable in the eyes of the people. It is very important for people to understand that Dynamaxing isn't a tangible element that you can simply remove like an individual pokemon or item or whatever, but rather the entire concept of something, akin to all abilities, all items, all moves, etc. Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.

Gen 1 -> Gen 2: Items and Spikes enter the metagame, punishing switchins while enabling pokemon to be sustainable at the same time.
Gen 2 -> Gen 3: Abilities and Natures enter the metagame and suddenly pokemon are no longer capable of having 252 in all 6 stats.
Gen 3 -> Gen 4: The Physical/Special split changes dozens of offensive pokemon, in addition to gamechanging new hazards + removal.
Gen 4 -> Gen 5: Hidden Abilities make dozens of pokemon more viable, in addition to causing the infamous weather wars.
Gen 5 -> Gen 6: Mega Evolutions make a new group of viable pokemon while weathers were nerfed to 5/8 turns.
Gen 6 -> Gen 7: Z-Moves further enable hundreds of pokemon to perform better by means of technique.

Every generation has had some drastic new mechanic that shifted people's basic understanding of competitive pokemon, in addition to multiple incredibly significant elements that introduced major changes to the way that competitive pokemon was played, from Stealth Rock to Scald to Sticky Web and so forth. Stealth Rock, in particular, had a lot of discussion behind it; many points of which I absolutely believe could be applied to the discussion of Dynamaxing, so I spent a lot of time reading through these threads so that you don't have to! (Though you probably still should)

There are a handful of ideologies that can be gleamed from all of these threads and posts that should absolutely be taken into account when considering what constitutes a ban for a pokemon vs any tool used by pokemon:

1. Evaluations cannot come without evidence of the claims made.
  • This means something like usage stats, and just players in general trying to wrap their minds around understanding what the best strategies in the metagame currently are before attempting to make any significant decisions beyond obvious ones like banning the cover legendaries at the start of the generation.
  • The amount of "centralization" something forces upon the meta will always be subjectively drawn by whoever you ask, though it should always at least require the consideration of usage stats to visibly observe with certainty that something is currently dominating the metagame, as otherwise, the argument simply boils down to hearsay from the likes of people who "never had trouble with X", on the consideration that they always happened to be using counters to X, whether knowingly or not.
  • As an example, consider the case of Kyurem-Black, wherein its presence mandated pokemon to run what would nowadays be considered bad sets in order to beat it; the likes of fast + physically defensive Charizard-X + Y, Choice Specs / Fairium physically defensive Primarina + Tapu Fini, etc. With Kyurem-Black gone, the usage of these spreads and items died down, making it evident that Kyurem-Black was a major part of why these bad sets were considered "necessary". It is this kind of observable change with banned aspects that we should be looking for and even predicting will happen given that the hypothetical X element is banned, and whether or not the changes forced upon X's victims are damning enough to warrant a ban.
2. In the debate of creating a "better" metagame as opposed to a "pure" metagame, the latter is less subjective.
  • A very important argument that was prominent in almost all of the Stealth Rock discussion was coming to the conclusion of whether it is a "good" metagame or a "pure" metagame that we should strive for, with the difference between the two being that a "pure" metagame strives to maintain as many of the elements provided while only removing the most egregious cases of something being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, while a "good" metagame is one that is ultimately subjectively agreed upon by a majority of people to be better than what it was previously, even if it means removing something that wasn't necessarily problematic towards the greater metagame.
  • The wording of the general tiering policy framework puts forth notions that "pure" metagames are preferred, though it doesn't necessarily state why that is the case. A few of the posts I linked above argue that this method of handling metas is ideal on account of the fact that banning with the intention of producing a "good" or "better" or "improved" metagame is entirely subjective and may very well lend to the idea that anything can be suspected given enough of an outcry from the community, rather than the provision of any kind of evidence that something truly needs to be removed.
3. Suspect tests and discussions are a means to evaluating why the suspected element was or should be removed.
  • With the understanding set forth by point 2 that only something egregiously harmful to the metagame deserves to be removed, the task of demonstrating those egregious characteristics falls to the side attempting to instigate change within the metagame.
  • Demonstrating something as an element that deserves to be banned is not simply something that can be done by show of support when someone makes a post that you agree with, but rather with rigid evidence that a conclusion can be drawn from.
4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.
  • With a hypothetical Dynamax suspect, it'd be hard to discern qualities that warrant a clear need for suspect, as the main thing we'd be seeing is that the metagame is clearly different without it. Not more balanced, but different. There is no certainty that a no-dynamax metagame would even have less broken aspects than the one we have now. Everything that even comes close to being broken in this meta turns out to be bugged, on account of ingame mechanics functioning differently from how they're implemented on PS.
5. An alternative metagame is a bad idea.
  • With point 4 in mind, an alternative metagame without Dynamax seems like a clear way to discern whether or not the meta would really balance out without it. The problem with this notion is outlined in a few of the links above, regarding the possibility of splitting the community we have down the middle between those who prefer the meta with Dynamax and those who prefer the meta without it.
  • While it does sound idealistic to see how a metagame without Dynamax would play out, that is solely caving in to the idea that there is a problem with Dynamax to begin with, which, if there were, then it should be very clearly discernible by means of evidence.
6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.
  • If Dynamax were truly the source of the metagame being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, then there already should have been suspect-worthy pokemon that got to where they were because of their abuse of Dynamax.
  • Not only do there need to be Pokemon in general that are bannable solely because of their abuse of Dynamax, just about every pokemon needs to be capable of sweeping, haxing, or otherwise creating an unfavorable scenario for a large majority of opponents, or at least large enough a group to be deemed as overcentralizing.
7. Discerning problems is a matter of skill.
  • The tiering policy framework does a sufficient job at explaining what skillful play is, on a teambuilding and battling level. With the framework's definition in mind, it comes to us to determine whether or not Dynamax as a mechanic contradicts any part of it, and by how much it does so.
  • When doing this, it is important to differentiate when something is simply a change to how skillful play is carried out, as opposed to when skillful play is actually being punished in the face of unskillful play.
    • An example of a change to skillful play would be the transfer from gen 3 to gen 4, where the newfound presence of Stealth Rock effectively mandated that teams have a defogger or spinner in order to clear them out.
    • An example of skillful play being punished by unskillful play is the use of evasion boosting / accuracy dropping to avoid otherwise game-ending attacks, thus placing the result of the game in the hands of RNG.
Ultimately, Dynamax is a generation-defining feature of the Sword and Shield metagame, much like Stealth Rock was for Diamond and Pearl, Hidden Abilities for Black and White, Mega Evolution for X and Y, and so forth. Removing it would effectively be forfeiting the identity as a Gen 8 metagame and molding it into an OM of itself, rather than abiding by the standards set in place by the new generation.
 

Nalei

intentionally stronger
is a Pre-Contributor
I wholeheartedly don't believe it should be a mechanic of the game that is to blame for a meta becoming unfavorable in the eyes of the people. It is very important for people to understand that Dynamaxing isn't a tangible element that you can simply remove like an individual pokemon or item or whatever, but rather the entire concept of something, akin to all abilities, all items, all moves, etc. Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.
Dynamax is a mechanic that's able to be utilized during a game but not during teambuilding. While it's true that it's not akin to banning an individual Pokemon, it's also true that it's much more comparable to mechanics such as switching (which is a mechanic that can't be utilized in 1v1 and doesn't make Pokemon in 1v1 any less of Pokemon). That said, you're correct in saying that it's not so simple as banning a move. In fact, it's more of a clause than a ban. However, I think that in the case of dynamax in 1v1, we have ample reason to necessitate a dynamax clause.
1. Evaluations cannot come without evidence of the claims made.
Let's start with my claims:
A) The coexistence of dynamax and Substitute turns a huge number of matchups into 50/50s.
B) Non-dynamaxed Pokemon simply can't compete dynamaxed and there are only 19 max moves of which most Pokemon get a good variety. Because of this, viable moves essentially include the 19 max moves, Substitute, and some niche set up options. This radical degradation in the number of viable moves will lead to overcentralization because without their movepools to set them apart, many previously niche Pokemon will be entirely outclassed by Pokemon with better stats, abilities, and typings. In essence, dynamax decreases the number of available niches in the metagame.

My first claim is hardly based on metrics or experience, it's one that's simply true. Denying that the interaction between Substitute and dynamax isn't relevant is lunacy. While one may blame Substitute instead of dynamax here, banning Sub will not help with my second quip, and might actually exaggerate it. You're correct in saying that my second claim is currently based in experience rather than evidence, but it seems at least probable that dynamax leads to overcentralization, and at this point in the gen, that's enough. Just like banning the cover legendaries, we should make the best metagame that we're capable of to start the generation even if that involves some uncertainty. I'm all for having a suspect to bring dynamax back later, but in the mean time we shouldn't have the meta developing for too long in a direction that's going to be voided by a game-changing ban once the stats are clear.
2. In the debate of creating a "better" metagame as opposed to a "pure" metagame, the latter is less subjective.
As I touched on above, I simply believe that we have enough reason to damage the "purity" of 1v1 in order to make it "better." The state of the metagame right now is simply awful (opinion!) and it's clear to me that the source of this awfulness is dynamax.
3. Suspect tests and discussions are a means to evaluating why the suspected element was or should be removed.
  • With the understanding set forth by point 2 that only something egregiously harmful to the metagame deserves to be removed, the task of demonstrating those egregious characteristics falls to the side attempting to instigate change within the metagame.
  • Demonstrating something as an element that deserves to be banned is not simply something that can be done by show of support when someone makes a post that you agree with, but rather with rigid evidence that a conclusion can be drawn from.
The burden of proof does fall upon the pro-ban side and while I would agree with you later in the gen, I disagree with you at this point in the gen. We don't need rigid evidence, we need to make the meta as good as possible as quickly as possible. I think that it's also important that we don't see a dynamax ban this early in the gen as a permanent event considering that we'd hopefully give dynamax a suspect eventually.
4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.
The uncompetitive and unhealthy elements that I think a dynamax ban would reduce are the omnipresence of genuine 50/50s and overcentralization. Is that clear-cut enough? While we don't know that a metagame without dynamax would be better, I'm also unconvinced that the past happened. Uncertainty is unavoidable and focusing too much on it, especially this early in the gen, simply leads to inaction.
5. An alternative metagame is a bad idea.
I really don't get where you're going here. A huge majority of people who play 1v1 OMs play regular 1v1 too so there shouldn't be any serious divide. Besides, how would this relate to a dynamax ban?
6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.
The problems with dynamax are that it introduces 50/50s to too many matchups and that it results in overcentralization. I simply fail to see how either of these things (especially the prior) must result in an individually suspect-worthy Pokemon.
7. Discerning problems is a matter of skill.
In a vacuum, Substitute-dynamax 50/50s are genuine 50/50s and you're unable to control whether or not your opponent brings Substitute. Putting these together removes skill from the hands on the player and replaces it with pseudo-RNG. My issue with overcentralization does not impede skill.
Ultimately, Dynamax is a generation-defining feature of the Sword and Shield metagame, much like Stealth Rock was for Diamond and Pearl, Hidden Abilities for Black and White, Mega Evolution for X and Y, and so forth. Removing it would effectively be forfeiting the identity as a Gen 8 metagame and molding it into an OM of itself, rather than abiding by the standards set in place by the new generation.
While there is something to be said about purity and the loss of identity, the state of the meta is stale and does not reward skill to the extent that it could. I think I speak for most of 1v1 when I say that I'd rather play an interesting metagame without Game Freak's latest gimmick than what we have now.
 

Kaif

Banned deucer.
pew pew my last post got deleted, thoughts on dyna is still the same in that it should be quickbanned so that the meta can develop without suspecting

Removing it would essentially be removing part of what makes a pokemon... a pokemon.
I don't know why you think this is an argument to why dynamax should stay. Every ban in a tier is "removing part of what makes a pokemon a pokemon." Of course you can't compare an entire mechanic to simple items and abilities as you say but I don't think this is half of a reason to why we should keep dmax.
6. Discerning something as a problem means that there has to be a problem in the metagame.
  • If Dynamax were truly the source of the metagame being broken, uncompetitive, or unhealthy, then there already should have been suspect-worthy pokemon that got to where they were because of their abuse of Dynamax.
  • Not only do there need to be Pokemon in general that are bannable solely because of their abuse of Dynamax, just about every pokemon needs to be capable of sweeping, haxing, or otherwise creating an unfavorable scenario for a large majority of opponents, or at least large enough a group to be deemed as overcentralizing.
yea but the points are literally true though, dynamaxing doubles your hp. Every fucking mon has the same potential to do it with dynamax with the only barrier being stats and movepool. Dynamax is the source of everything that is blatantly centralizing and which creates a boring metagame
4. The point of suspect tests and bans is ultimately to lower the number of broken, uncompetitive, and/or unhealthy elements present within the metagame.
  • With a hypothetical Dynamax suspect, it'd be hard to discern qualities that warrant a clear need for suspect, as the main thing we'd be seeing is that the metagame is clearly different without it. Not more balanced, but different. There is no certainty that a no-dynamax metagame would even have less broken aspects than the one we have now. Everything that even comes close to being broken in this meta turns out to be bugged, on account of ingame mechanics functioning differently from how they're implemented on PS.
you're just going off pure speculation here, we know that dynamax is the cause and everything that comes after dynamax ban will be handled accordingly
2. In the debate of creating a "better" metagame as opposed to a "pure" metagame, the latter is less subjective.
this is true, you want a meta to be as close to the cartridge while being balanced, on the other hand I have no idea why you're linking threads from 11 years ago which definitely did not follow the tiering policy that we do today.
tl;dr I basically said everything mace said but more half assed.
Dynamax forces too many things to be ran on every set (substitute), the mechanic of dynamaxing is just unbalanced in a fast paced metagame such as 1v1 where it causes mons that should not tank a hit to tank a hit (exca, durant). If it is blatantly unbalanced, it's bannable no matter how far from the main game it goes. The argument that "dynamax shouldn't be banned because it's the main mechanic of ss" is plainly wrong and we've seen metas such as LC already pull the banhammer. I don't see any reason to why we should keep dynamax any longer Quote its time zz

also if ur a baller pass me teams so that I can ladder inside this cancer
 
Let's start with my claims:
A) The coexistence of dynamax and Substitute turns a huge number of matchups into 50/50s.
First, they have already made dynamax move affects go through substitutes like a max wyrmwind can lower the opponents attack even through a sub. They have also made subs dissapear when you dynamax. Both of these lower the 50/50 matchups(which you kept mentioning) alot.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top