>>20867351You're really using Aegislash to defend your point? Okay I'll bite.
That screenshot was mainly about people pressuring others to vote ban to liven up the metagame. Everyone knew how good Aegislash was, and everyone knew the counters (spoiler alert:
there were no good ones), it's just came down to a point of opinion on whether or not the meta would be better off with it gone since it slowed down the pace of the game and some people like that. Peer pressure is what Haunter is talking about there, not the metagame settling. The actual voters don't bandwagon as much as the idiots in the suspect threads.
Aegislash was in the tier for half a year. We knew what it could do, and had known for a long time. Nothing was changing to make it worse, but its corner of the meta was growing since it checked nearly everything through mechanics. It was manageable, but no one could dispute that it made teambuilding significantly more boring.
Also, you whine too much. Thundurus and Landorus-I are heralded by /vp/ as broken and in every battle, but they have much less usage than you would think. In 1825+ Thundurus has 13.5% usage and Lando-I has 9%. They both jump a little bit when you move down to 1695, but Thundy is 15%(rounded up) and Lando-I is still around 9.5%. They're common, but not THAT common.
