>>39753147>not being able to use the pokemon is better than not being able to use the pokemon!>Nice argument.Nice twist of words, restricting certain mons to being tiered and competing with other mons that are similar in power is not the same as entirely removing them from the game. You have been bitching this entire time about mons dominating others, this let's weaker mons have a chance to be viable without removing them.
>It's bothNo it isn't, because people aren't going to use worse options in a competitive game.
Then why are you advocating less content when the problem will not go away? Less content is bad and this won't change the problem.
>and out of those 300 people still only use 50 of themUnless they don't and more Pokemon are used as a result of the best options being taken away.
They always do? It's almost like this has to do with the players rather than the content.
>Try refuting my points instead.I already have. Go learn how game balance works.
No you haven't, you haven't refuted any of my points and keep doubling down on your ignorance prove me wrong instead of screaming I don't know what I'm talking about when you can't even provide a proper argument.
>No it isn'tYes, it is. Please explain how every player using Dynamite because it beats every other option is somehow more variety than there being an even 1/3 split of Rock, Paper, and Scissors. I'd love to know how your rotting brain works.
Ok, first of all there aren't 4 pokemon. There are near 1000 rock paper and Scissors are in tier 1 dynamite is in tier 2. And an atomic bomb is in tier 3. So because you want to use paper against an atomic bomb doesn't mean it's bad. It means you're playing at a disadvantage. Use atomic bombs against atomic bombs. And use paper against rocks. Getting rid of tier 2 and 3 is IS LESS VARIETY IN THE GAME.
