>>45466427>answering almost 4 hours later>Stupid disingenuous cunt, selectively addressing points and ignoring others.The things I addressed were blanket points for your whole post. I left out nothing
>Yes, anon, some Pokemon were vastly overpowered despite the held item trade off. They were much, much better for it. M-Kanga, M-Metagross, M-Salamence, etc.I never denied that it made some Pokemon better, but supplanting one broken aspect for another isn't smart or competent design. And There are still numerous Pokemon who still weren't viable despite it, and those cases vastly outweighed the success stories.
Unless, of course, we're going to start diving into the tried and true cope:
>I-ITS GOOD IN UU>What about Tyranitar? Mewtwo? Both were cases where it was worth picking between the benefits of a mega or a held item.What the FUCK are you talking about? Disregarding the fact that NEITHER of those Pokemon needed Megas in the first place (see my point: "the good got better"), Mega Tyrantiar was considered INFERIOR in nearly every capacity because IT HAD TO BE RUN AGAINST OTHER MEGAS. Hell, when Gen 7 was the main metagame, it was only OU By Technicality, meaning it wasn't even good enough for OU but stayed up due to its base form's high strength. this wasn't due to item.
Also why the fuck are you pulling this whole "DURR CHANGE PLAYSTYLE" garbage out of your ass? Mega Kanga has a substantially different playstyle than base Kanga, what the fuck does it matter?
>But there are more that are that way simply because their normal forms are just that unviable otherwise.So? Again, I never claimed it didn't make SOME mons better, just that it heavily contributed to power creep and were unevenly distributed to Pokemon who had, at least theoretically, NOT needed the help. You know as well as I do that GF didn't look at Salamence and say "hey, this Pokemon with a 600 BST isn't doing so hot, lets buff it with 100 more base points!". Shitty balance is still shit.
1/?
