Proposal:
Allow the usage of <, <=, >, >= to compare tiers in Dex Search, that is, /ds <=uu would compress /ds uu | rubl | ru | nubl | nu | publ | pu...
Reasoning:
The current syntax for searching "all tiers above or below tier X" is very unwieldy, and makes searching across multiple tiers difficult. If I wanted to search "all pokemon in or below NU with Defog and either Volt Switch or U-turn" the following syntax is an initial ok guess, but does not work.
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, nu | publ | pu | zu | lcuber | lc
The correct syntax for the above is actually below, however unwieldy:
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, !uber, !ou, !uubl, !uu, !rubl, !ru, !nubl
I am proposing instead:
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, <=nu
I am unsure if that is the correct syntax, and it technically implies the existence of a "tier" object, but I hope I am getting the general idea across. My apologies if this functionality is already coded in, I did check /ds <=nu, defog, and it appears to only return NU mons, so at least I don't believe it is coded in as above.
Allow the usage of <, <=, >, >= to compare tiers in Dex Search, that is, /ds <=uu would compress /ds uu | rubl | ru | nubl | nu | publ | pu...
Reasoning:
The current syntax for searching "all tiers above or below tier X" is very unwieldy, and makes searching across multiple tiers difficult. If I wanted to search "all pokemon in or below NU with Defog and either Volt Switch or U-turn" the following syntax is an initial ok guess, but does not work.
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, nu | publ | pu | zu | lcuber | lc
The correct syntax for the above is actually below, however unwieldy:
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, !uber, !ou, !uubl, !uu, !rubl, !ru, !nubl
I am proposing instead:
/ds defog, volt switch | u-turn, <=nu
I am unsure if that is the correct syntax, and it technically implies the existence of a "tier" object, but I hope I am getting the general idea across. My apologies if this functionality is already coded in, I did check /ds <=nu, defog, and it appears to only return NU mons, so at least I don't believe it is coded in as above.