to be fair, you should know better then to write analysis' (analysi? analysises? nah, im right i think) on broken mons ;)But my analysis
Eh, I wouldn't really agree, anything with a fire move can force it out. It also has a huge case of 4mssScizor(ite). Scizor is undeniably an extremely good pokemon in the meta and I believe that it is potentially broken. It has amazing wall breaking power speed and bulk as well as the best non-e-speed priority in the tier.
The thing is, Scizor just needs one turn to destroy the opponent. Fire-type moves don't even necessarily force it out, because after a Shift Gear it can beat most of them:Eh, I wouldn't really agree, anything with a fire move can force it out. It also has a huge case of 4mss
My first and only reaction: Wtf? I get that people think it's broken, but there has literally been basically no discussion besides "we think it's a problem and it should be suspected (which isn't discussion in the first place)". If bans are this disorganized and randomly enforced in the future we're likely to end up where we were before...[16:13] ~Eevee General: ban y/n
[16:13] Klang: y
My adviser has spoken.
Diggersby is banned. The Immortal
Idk where you've been but it was discussed, albeit quickly. I brought it up multiple times in the chat, too.My first and only reaction: Wtf? I get that people think it's broken, but there has literally been basically no discussion besides "we think it's a problem and it should be suspected (which isn't discussion in the first place)". If bans are this disorganized and randomly enforced in the future we're likely to end up where we were before...
Well for that matter, there has not been one reasonable analysis of diggersby's broken effect on the metagame, leaving anybody not in the chat at the time completely in the dark. The only official word that was given was "maybe we do something" to "somebody said ban when i said y/n so we ban it," which is appalling (you could've gotten away with the joke if there was some sort of reasoning, but there is none).Idk where you've been but it was discussed, albeit quickly. I brought it up multiple times in the chat, too.
I've also been basically doing only quickbans to get ready for the STABmons Open, something I was very vocal about and have continued to emphasize when I bring up suspects.
So sorry you missed them but we did discuss Diggersby.
Well for that matter, there has not been one reasonable analysis of diggersby's broken effect on the metagame, leaving anybody not in the chat at the time completely in the dark. The only official word that was given was "maybe we do something" to "somebody said ban when i said y/n so we ban it," which is appalling (you could've gotten away with the joke if there was some sort of reasoning, but there is none).
My main problem is that I don't believe that diggersby negatively affects the metagame. Maybe it's broken by standard definitions but in my mind it promotes diversity more than it limits (teams still need fakespeed checks and having diggersby as an all-in-one revenge killer gave teams more free slots, not to mention that stall is only possible in the diggersby metagame). The fact that there was quick discussion makes me think there wasn't much opposition, which is the exact thing you DON'T want when you're discussing such a metagame defining suspect. Diggersby is literally the face of the metagame, and banning it right before tour basically means there is and will be no stability.
Honestly, this metagame is no different than it was before. The perception that we were "making mistakes" before is just a backstory as we are literally rewriting history by banning the same things we did before.
OK now bring on the hate, I really don't care. I'm just waiting for somebody to get mad over what I'm saying right now. It honestly doesn't matter to me, this metagame is the same as it was when we tried to change it so I probably won't play it anymore.
Yes, and your opposition covered almost none of an actual argument on this thread. I said it already, have somebody pro-ban give detailed arguments that addresses the anti-ban arguments I presented before and I'll shut up.I didn't ban it because Klang said yes lol. That was in PMs. I actually had just posted a poll beforehand. Also an FYI I was the biggest opposition to banning Diggs. Have you even been reading this thread?
Just because you weren't present for the discussion and you're opposed to the outcome doesn't mean that it didn't happenYes, and your opposition covered almost none of an actual argument on this thread. I said it already, have somebody pro-ban give detailed arguments that addresses the anti-ban arguments I presented before and I'll shut up.
No, it's not ME alone that wasn't there for the discussion. You can't just discuss the metagame and decide to ban something with no indication of the contents of the discussion to anybody who wasn't present at that time. Sorry I'm busy with All-state and can't be on showdown constantly, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get a chance to be a part of the discussion, or at least have some description of the discussion itself.Just because you weren't present for the discussion and you're opposed to the outcome doesn't mean that it didn't happen
well i mean, its his meta, he CAN if he wants too.(not that he did or anything). on top of that, whats there to discuss that wasn't discussed last time it was banned? the meta hasn't changed at all since its introduction that would warrent giving it more consistant checks and counters(hence why it was banned last time) theres no point resuspecting something the entire community begged eevee to ban in the first place, and since the meta looks NO different from before, it really doesn't need to have too much discussion. legit, we got 3 less attacks, and thats it. the meta looks no different. sure, there wasn't much discussion, but thats because we were literally repeating ourselves. which is just a waste of time. diggersby still completely shits on offense and stall just as badly, and requires you to run 2 checks just to attempt to manage it. thats NOT healthy. and thats reasoning for a quickban if ive ever seen one.No, it's not ME alone that wasn't there for the discussion. You can't just discuss the metagame and decide to ban something with no indication of the contents of the discussion to anybody who wasn't present at that time. Sorry I'm busy with All-state and can't be on showdown constantly, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get a chance to be a part of the discussion, or at least have some description of the discussion itself.
Because the new meta was supposed to be about getting second chances to recreate past events to attempt to find different outcomes, I fail to see how we can utterly ignore an anti-ban argument with a mon that was banned on almost a 50/50 split before and literally began the downward spiral of the previous metagame. Before the Diggersby ban we had some semblance of balance in the old meta, and afterwards it was just a fest for matchup-based offense. Now we have literally recreated the old meta. Where did we go wrong? What was even the point of restarting the meta if we were going to watch the same outcome reoccur?well i mean, its his meta, he CAN if he wants too.(not that he did or anything). on top of that, whats there to discuss that wasn't discussed last time it was banned? the meta hasn't changed at all since its introduction that would warrent giving it more consistant checks and counters(hence why it was banned last time) theres no point resuspecting something the entire community begged eevee to ban in the first place, and since the meta looks NO different from before, it really doesn't need to have too much discussion. legit, we got 3 less attacks, and thats it. the meta looks no different. sure, there wasn't much discussion, but thats because we were literally repeating ourselves. which is just a waste of time. diggersby still completely shits on offense and stall just as badly, and requires you to run 2 checks just to attempt to manage it. thats NOT healthy. and thats reasoning for a quickban if ive ever seen one.
sure, diggers couldve had more discussion...but what more can we add that we didn't last time?
The reason we switched back was because no-one thought Stabmons 2 was fun. The reason we banned diggersby is because it is broken(no viable pokemon can check all of his common sets) and overcentralizing(he required every team to have at least 2 answers to him). If the metagame appears to be worse after banning a broken and overcentalizing mon, then the threats it was holding back are broken/overcentralizing/uncompetitive/unhealthy and needed to be banned in the first place.Because the new meta was supposed to be about getting second chances to recreate past events to attempt to find different outcomes, I fail to see how we can utterly ignore an anti-ban argument with a mon that was banned on almost a 50/50 split before and literally began the downward spiral of the previous metagame. Before the Diggersby ban we had some semblance of balance in the old meta, and afterwards it was just a fest for matchup-based offense. Now we have literally recreated the old meta. Where did we go wrong? What was even the point of restarting the meta if we were going to watch the same outcome reoccur?