[28 / 4 / ?]
Quoted By: >>30642364 >>30642470 >>30642928
>usage based tiers
Why exactly do people think this is a good thing and not overcentralizing as opposed to just plain analyzing the pokemon to figure out whats a good matchup against what?
I get that it lets you know who the most used/popular pokemon are but thats also exactly what makes it so skewed. I agree that its a good starting point for analysis but its not a good metric to 100% base a tier of. Some shit in OU for example, is there because as one would think, people lack creativity and can only do one thing. But its pretty sad to see pokemon like aegislash get unfairly tiered just because they are a surprise to most opponents (is it special, physical or some other gimmick?) or just because the pokemons main gimmick is really strong for the one type of strategy the majority of the tier likes to use.
Pokemon is supposed to be about mind gaming and checking your opponents sets, but this kind of shit treats it like theres only one way to play.
Why exactly do people think this is a good thing and not overcentralizing as opposed to just plain analyzing the pokemon to figure out whats a good matchup against what?
I get that it lets you know who the most used/popular pokemon are but thats also exactly what makes it so skewed. I agree that its a good starting point for analysis but its not a good metric to 100% base a tier of. Some shit in OU for example, is there because as one would think, people lack creativity and can only do one thing. But its pretty sad to see pokemon like aegislash get unfairly tiered just because they are a surprise to most opponents (is it special, physical or some other gimmick?) or just because the pokemons main gimmick is really strong for the one type of strategy the majority of the tier likes to use.
Pokemon is supposed to be about mind gaming and checking your opponents sets, but this kind of shit treats it like theres only one way to play.
