[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[Darththeo]

This just feels like some weird typical attempt to discredit while also acknowledging that the point is still right.

While the argument you make back holds little ground if you twist it around a few times, like having too many pokemon makes it easier to miss one that could be strong against a meta, or how having too many pokemon makes it harder to balance and tune.

Because the situation isn't as black and white as you are painting it. It isn't by default going to make it healthier, because that factor alone isn't enough. Yes, it is part of the health of online community. There are other things that factor in. And this is ironic given balancing and tuning for SwSh when Zacian in formats it was allowed dominated. Among the other broken pokemon that came in.

And if I denied it was part of health, I would be dishonest to do so. So I don't really get why this is confusing to you.

I never said difficulty, I said time. Even a weekend to make one team is still a time sink that many people don't have an interest in, but they still enjoy the battling part. Spending hours hatching and catching isn't exactly thrilling to most.

True, but again, most players do not battle online. They want to play through single player with their favorites. So, making decisions for the health of online (at any level) is an invalid position, which was the original point.

But I don't see the point in continuing this because it's getting extremely drawn out where you yourself keep saying "well yeah, it's healthier in this way BUT". Which just feels like trying to argue for...no real reason? You're admitting it's right. It doesn't mean you have to agree or just concede to the pokedex being smaller, it just means that you can also see why someone would view it as a positive.

Because you are deliberately not understanding what I am saying.

[Jester Joe]

Because you are deliberately not understanding what I am saying.

No, I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm saying you're adding things that aren't there.

And I'll go through this once.

No one said that the competitive scene was a good reason to cut the pokemon down. You said that's what was being claimed, and here's the quote-

Again, the point Lahis had made was that limiting the in game dex solely because of online play is not a good argument. I don't agree with Lahis on a lot of things, but this is something I fully agree with

The issue is there, you're discussing a point no one claimed. The original part (which you cut out of my quote) was that "because of dexit, competitive felt better". Which is a valid viewpoint to have.


Past that, what I said specifically was it feels more intuitive and smoother for the player if the Pokemon in game also aligned with what was usable online, even if there's a smaller ban pool or formats that don't allow legendaries.

Again, that isn't saying it's the REASON to cut Pokemon.



Now, you're trying to say "well it isn't black and white like you're painting it".

But again, that isn't what I'm saying. All I'm saying is in ONE ASPECT it is healthier, and here are the reasons why.

you bringing up other angles and then accusing me of painting it black and white isn't accurate, since I never said the overall state is healthier/poorer in any way. Again, that's just adding things that weren't claimed or said.

So there isn't a reason to continue this, because it isn't about discussing, it seems like it's just an argument where you want to be right and not see the other viewpoint instead.

[Darththeo]

So there isn't a reason to continue this, because it isn't about discussing, it seems like it's just an argument where you want to be right and not see the other viewpoint instead.

Dude, no, you don't get what I am saying.

You are too caught up on a single word

[Jester Joe]

Dude, no, you don't get what I am saying.

You are too caught up on a single word

Because my point was a single point and yet you keep compounding on it and dragging in topics I'm not talking about.

That's WHY I said this is over, because you even said "well yeah, easier to access is healthy."

That's my whole point, that's literally it. Any time you have to go out of the game to look up info about what is and isn't allowed is bad for the game.

All your other points are just trying to move the goalposts away from what I was saying.

It's not "being caught up on a single word", it's "youre dragging the argument though every single topic that wasn't even said just to try to discredit the initial point that still stands".

[Maljinwo]

Mom, dad. Stop fighting

Both sides of the discussion are correct

Should we have all pokemon? Yes
Is it okay if we don't have all pokemon? Also yes


I fucking love Nidoking, but I'm not gonna cry if he's not obtainable on one game

[Darththeo]

Because my point was a single point and yet you keep compounding on it and dragging in topics I'm not talking about.

That's WHY I said this is over, because you even said "well yeah, easier to access is healthy."

That's my whole point, that's literally it. Any time you have to go out of the game to look up info about what is and isn't allowed is bad for the game.

All your other points are just trying to move the goalposts away from what I was saying.

It's not "being caught up on a single word", it's "youre dragging the argument though every single topic that wasn't even said just to try to discredit the initial point that still stands".

Because I didn't actually say that, which isn't the only part of my argument you have misunderstood. I said specifically it is an aspect of it, and that saying so is only valid if the goal for Gamefreak was the health of competitive. And Gamefreak's goal is solely body count into Competitive, they don't care for the health of it. It is like saying someone is pushing health but their goal is signing more people up for gym memberships. Yes, getting people to exercise would mean they are pushing health, but that is only one aspect and isn't enough to claim it is actually health involved in that decision.

And then you go "but you said it is part of health." YOU are shifting goalposts here. Not me. So, I say again, you do not understand what my argument is, you therefore cannot claim I shifted goalposts. So when someone argues "Cut dex is healthier for competitive" bringing up GameFreak's attitude towards it, the fact they failed to balance it, etc ... shows that argument itself is vapid.

But this time I am done because I am tired of your accusations at this point. Reply if you want.

[Gurahk]

In other news, Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope was pretty damn good, one of my GOTY contenders.

[Jester Joe]

Because I didn't actually say that. I said specifically it is an aspect of it, and that saying so is only valid if the goal for Gamefreak was the health of competitive. And Gamefreak's goal is solely body count into Competitive, they don't care for the health of it. It is like saying someone is pushing health but their goal is signing more people up for gym memberships. Yes, getting people to exercise would mean they are pushing health, but that is only one aspect and isn't enough to claim it is actually health involved in that decision.

And then you go "but you said it is part of health." YOU are shifting goalposts here. Not me. So, I say again, you do not understand what my argument is, you therefore cannot claim I shifted goalposts. So when someone argues "Cut dex is healthier for competitive" bringing up GameFreak's attitude towards it, the fact they failed to balance it, etc ... shows that argument itself is vapid.

But this time I am done because I am tired of your accusations at this point. Reply if you want.

Yeah, you clearly have some sorta deep grudge about this, a chip on your shoulder. Taking it out on others isn't exactly the answer.

You straight up just said in the same post, "I only said it was an aspect of it" and then rejected saying that it's a part of a healthy competition. As if an aspect and a part are completely different things.

[Darththeo]

Yeah, you clearly have some sorta deep grudge about this, a chip on your shoulder. Taking it out on others isn't exactly the answer.

You straight up just said in the same post, "I only said it was an aspect of it" and then rejected saying that it's a part of a healthy competition. As if an aspect and a part are completely different things.

Dude, I give up here. You clearly have no clue what I am saying and when I try to explain it to you, you accuse me of bs.

[Jester Joe]

Dude, I give up here. You clearly have no clue what I am saying and when I try to explain it to you, you accuse me of bs.

I said like, several posts ago I was done with this because it was clear it was going nowhere, but apparently that wasn't good enough to drop it though.

The issue here is still that you kept responding with MORE random side arguments that had nothing to do with my original post, nor have you addressed the fact that the topic was never "For competitive reasons, the pokedex should be cut short for games".

Which you keep giving the impression that's what was said, as right here-

So when someone argues "Cut dex is healthier for competitive" bringing up GameFreak's attitude towards it, the fact they failed to balance it, etc ... shows that argument itself is vapid.

And I can't stress this enough, you keep saying I have no idea what you're saying, but no one at any point claimed anything about Gamefreak's attitude BESIDES you and Lahis.

The original post was just "Cut dex led to a more enjoyable experience". That doesn't mean, and I cannot stress this enough, IT DOESN'T mean that people are saying the pokedex SHOULD BE cut short for competitive, just that it HAPPENED to make it more enjoyable.

So when you keep going on about "Well they could just have bans!" or "Well the game tells you if your pokemon is banned!", it isn't addressing the original point, it's just adding ways to still ban pokemon which...so what? That's why I said it isn't fun to have a team and find out half your team is banned suddenly because the game doesn't tell you until you try to play competitive.

Which still hasn't been addressed either! But you're claiming I'M the one not understanding.

[Darththeo]

I said like, several posts ago I was done with this because it was clear it was going nowhere, but apparently that wasn't good enough to drop it though.

Dude, you were the one who brought up healthier competitive.

it is a good reason why it helps make a healthier competitive community.

You said it first. I responded to what you said.

That's why I said it isn't fun to have a team and find out half your team is banned suddenly because the game doesn't tell you until you try to play competitive.

Which still hasn't been addressed either! But you're claiming I'M the one not understanding.

Because it isn't even a moot point, it is a non-point because people already encounter that at times since Gen V where pokemon have been banned from official competitions, and not even small numbers. The first Unovan matches were Unovan Dex pokemon, all gen I to IV pokemon were not allowed plus some from Gen V. The first official online SM was no Megas and Alolan dex mons only. Bans have existed, and even then, SwSh has had official online matches where they banned dozens of the available mons.

What you are talking about is something that happens standard and it is ironic you are complaining I am taking a side tangent and then demand I address yours. Because my response is "That already happens and will continue to do so!" I did edit my post because I realize you address that but you were literally replying as I did so.

[Jester Joe]

Dude, you were the one who brought up healthier competitive.
You said it first. I responded to what you said.

And I can't stress this enough, you keep saying I have no idea what you're saying, but no one at any point claimed anything about Gamefreak's attitude BESIDES you and Lahis.

Stop cutting out words because it fits your argument.

This isn't the first time you've done it. This isn't the last time you'll do it either. You keep cutting out sections of my post and then miswording them to continue an argument. It's dishonest.

Saying making something accessible is healthy isn't making a grand statement that the entire health of the competitive scene is solely based on accessibility. But on the other hand, it IS still an important part of competition. The less accessible something is, the less competition you can actually have.

[Darththeo]

Stop cutting out words because it fits your argument.

This isn't the first time you've done it. This isn't the last time you'll do it either. You keep cutting out sections of my post and then miswording them to continue an argument. It's dishonest.

Again with the accusations, this is directly your quote.

No one is saying SOLELY for that, but it is a good reason why it helps make a healthier competitive community.

And I don't get what you're trying to say, because a large amount of people play on a fansite, you have a hard time believing...what? A general dismissive comment using a site that isn't even actually official isn't exactly compelling. This seems more like you're lumping me in with someone else's argument suddenly, because I didn't say that it's good for competitive. I said it's better for the player and more intuitive rather than having 1000+ pokemon just to find out 50% of them are banned anyway. I do acknowledge that other's views that it's healthier too, but that's not what my argument was.

You have cut out things I have said, so do not throw stones in a house made of glass. The only difference is you have the audacity to misrepresent what I said, while having the full quote.

Saying making something accessible is healthy isn't making a grand statement that the entire health of the competitive scene is solely based on accessibility. But on the other hand, it IS still an important part of competition. The less accessible something is, the less competition you can actually have.

And I don't disagree with this, but I am stating and have been this entire time that it isn't enough. It is called discussion, things move. Apparently, recognizing you made a point and explaining why that has issues with it is "shifting goalposts."

[Jester Joe]

Again with the accusations, this is directly your quote.

It's not "an accusation". It's a statement of fact. I said absolutely nothing in my last post about healthier competition. I pointed out that this whole repeatedly issue with Gamefreaks logic was only brought up by YOU and Lahis. Despite the fact that you kept accusing me of pushing their ideals or whatever.

Yet, in response you somehow bring up "but YOU SAID HEALTHIER COMPETITION!!". Which...had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. But you say it as if that disproves my last post, despite having no connection at all.

You have cut out things I have said, so do not throw stones in a house made of glass. The only difference is you have the audacity to misrepresent what I said, while having the full quote.

Every time I refer to what you've said, I bring up a quote to show it.

And I don't disagree with this, but I am stating and have been this entire time that it isn't enough. It is called discussion, things move. Apparently, recognizing you made a point and explaining why that has issues with it is "shifting goalposts."

You didn't recognize I had a point at the start.

Instead of hearing what I was saying, you immediately went right to the extreme opposite to try to counter what I said.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say though it would feel worse to have every Pokemon in the game, and constantly get "you can't use that Pokemon online" rejections, rather than having a still large pool size and be able to use all of them, or even have a small limitation pool

As opposed to "You can't have this pokemon at all even in single player"?

And we already had online events that limited pokemon and you cannot use prior gen transferred pokemon online in SwSh unless you delete their moveset with an NPC in Wyndon. So, we already had the "You can't use that pokemon" online rejections in SwSh. And there were events that you couldn't use certain pokemon for.

For example, you can transfer up a Umbreon with Toxic, but it is forbidden from use online in SwSh.

Since then it has been just constant rebuttal despite how many times I've tried to point out why what you're saying back isn't what I'm talking about.

[Darththeo]

It's not "an accusation". It's a statement of fact. I said absolutely nothing in my last post about healthier competition. I pointed out that this whole repeatedly issue with Gamefreaks logic was only brought up by YOU and Lahis. Despite the fact that you kept accusing me of pushing their ideals or whatever.

First off, no, it isn't a fact regardless of what you believe.

Secondly, the rest is not relevant because I brought up the point because of what you stated in that point because your argument goes back to that. Seriously, this is bs here.

Yet, in response you somehow bring up "but YOU SAID HEALTHIER COMPETITION!!". Which...had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. But you say it as if that disproves my last post, despite having no connection at all.

You are accusing me of going off track with my statement, and I am pointing out that you had brought up the point that took us down the track. It is directly addressing your point, but like you have since the beginning, not understood my point. Again, you aren't understanding me and pretending you do.

Every time I refer to what you've said, I bring up a quote to show it.

And show a complete lack of understanding.

You didn't recognize I had a point at the start.

Instead of hearing what I was saying, you immediately went right to the extreme opposite to try to counter what I said.

From me: "yes, I know that is an aspect of healthier, but the focus is on people playing, not balance or anything else"

You have brought this up numerous times, thanks for proving beyond all question you don't understand what I was saying. Just because you quote it doesn't mean you addressed it. And just because someone doesn't quote everything doesn't mean they took you out of context.

Since then it has been just constant rebuttal despite how many times I've tried to point out why what you're saying back isn't what I'm talking about.

First post:

You missed Lahis' point. They have had limits for VGC tourneys and they can limit what mons are allow online.

The limited dex can't be justified by competitive format because they have the ability to already limit that independently of what is available in the game. So, limiting the Dex in the game doesn't make any sense when they can just limit what pokemon are available to use online. Hell, for all of SwSh there were pokemon not permitted to be used online for various reasons.

Which you replied with the first quote post in yours, which didn't actually have to do with anything I said because as I stated in that reply "We already have had that numerous times."

The argument was about dexit and the limited dex as a whole, not just competitive (though you wanted to shift it to just competitive despite no one else doing that.). The statement was they like dexit because it improved competitive for them. The response was that it wasn't a good reason to cut it when other options were available. And your response was literally something that already happens in the game for the last 4 generations, like that somehow matters or would be different.

Again, bans on mons have been a thing in official online battles since Gen V. These bans are not express in game outside of unavailable mons, which have been a thing since Gen II. And I point out certain mons are banned, so your point of "Wouldn't it suck to find out half your team is not usable?" isn't a good point, because we already deal with that.

You then brought up healthier, and rather do what you do, I addressed the additional point you brought up. You took us down this path and now are complaining about me bringing that up because you didn't specifically say that in your most recent post ... which is a garbage tier argument.

[Jester Joe]

First off, no, it isn't a fact regardless of what you believe.

I'm not talking about what I believe. I'm talking about the order of who brought up what.

You seemed irritated by the idea that people were pushing that cutting pokemon out was good for competitive.

Like this whole post-

Because I didn't actually say that, which isn't the only part of my argument you have misunderstood. I said specifically it is an aspect of it, and that saying so is only valid if the goal for Gamefreak was the health of competitive. And Gamefreak's goal is solely body count into Competitive, they don't care for the health of it. It is like saying someone is pushing health but their goal is signing more people up for gym memberships. Yes, getting people to exercise would mean they are pushing health, but that is only one aspect and isn't enough to claim it is actually health involved in that decision.

And then you go "but you said it is part of health." YOU are shifting goalposts here. Not me. So, I say again, you do not understand what my argument is, you therefore cannot claim I shifted goalposts. So when someone argues "Cut dex is healthier for competitive" bringing up GameFreak's attitude towards it, the fact they failed to balance it, etc ... shows that argument itself is vapid.

Which I said to you, no one is arguing cut dex is healthier for competitive, it's that cutting the dex HAPPENED to lead to a more enjoyable, healthier experience.

I said this to you, and you...completely ignored it. Every time I've said you're flipping the statement around which completely changes the meaning, you've ignored it.

Secondly, the rest is not relevant because I brought up the point because of what you stated in that point because your argument goes back to that. Seriously, this is bs here.

What I was discussing at the point had nothing to do with that though. I had a post saying it's wrong to keep bringing up GameFreak and acting as if people were talking about GameFreak when only you and Lahis brought them up, I point that out.

To which you cut the entire part of GameFreak out of my post, and then you say this-

Dude, you were the one who brought up healthier competitive.

You said it first. I responded to what you said.

Explain that then. You're accusing me of misrepresenting, but here you straight up cut out the fact that I was talking about GameFreak's logic and then you fire back about something else I said.

You are accusing me of going off track with my statement, and I am pointing out that your had brought up the point that took us down the track. It is directly addressing your point, but like you have since the beginning, not understood my point.

Because can you tell me once how anything you said has anything to do with the fact that Pokemon games do not have ban lists that are accessible in game, last I checked at least? My point was that it's more intuitive for people who want to play to know that basically any pokemon they have in the game will work fine.

You responded about legendaries and mythicals, which is the closest point I saw, but even then it's easier to just straight up have a mode that says "no mythicals/legendaries". Mythicals are the only ones that might be harder for the average player to know, but they're not in abundance in the game anyway so it's something they can pick up on quickly.

And show a complete lack of understanding.

irrelevant snark noted.

From me: "yes, I know that is an aspect of healthier, but the focus is on people playing, not balance or anything else"

To which I said...there's no point in continuing the argument then since you literally straight up said it's healthier.

And then you started to argue even that? I mean, this ignores the fact that it's easier to balance a smaller selection than it is to balance 1000+ pokemon. Which I'm pretty sure I've also mentioned a few times.

You have brought this up numerous times, thanks for proving beyond all question you don't understand what I was saying.

Again, irrelevant snark.

First post:

Which you replied with the first quote post in your, which didn't actually have to do with anything I said because as I stated in that reply "We already have had that numerous times."

This...just sounds like you're claiming your own win on a discussion somehow.

How is pointing out to you that it's counter intuitive to have pokemon in game and then suddenly find out your entire team is banned for rank, and hell even your backup team is banned, because there's absolutely no indication in game to figure that out until you go to try to do competitive?

You're genuinely trying to say that has nothing to do with what you said? I don't get how this is being missed.

If there's 1000 pokemon in game, and you can only use 300-400, you'd have to look up what is usable online.

If you have 300-400 in game, and can use 385, then chances are you'll be perfectly fine to use what you have. You said they can already limit what they have, so cutting the pokemon isn't valid.

To which I said that it feels bad to try to play online to find out your team isn't allowed, despite being in the game. There's a pretty big difference in the different situations, it just seems like you misunderstood what I was saying.

You then brought up healthier, and rather do what you do, I addressed the additional point you brought up. You took us down this path and now are complaining about me bringing that up because you didn't specifically say that in your most recent post ... which is a garbage tier argument.

How many times does this make that you've just insulted arguments? you do you man, but this is pretty clearly telling if you have to keep retorting to mockery and insults.

I especially like how you're accusing me of bringing us "down this path" when I said quite a bit ago I was done with this discussion. The only fault i have there is in not having the impulse control to actually stop responding.

[Darththeo]

I'm not talking about what I believe. I'm talking about the order of who brought up what.

You seemed irritated by the idea that people were pushing that cutting pokemon out was good for competitive.

That is literally just talking about what you believe to be true. You are talking about what you seems to be, not what is. Therefore, that isn't a fact, but a belief.

Which I said to you, no one is arguing cut dex is healthier for competitive, it's that cutting the dex HAPPENED to lead to a more enjoyable, healthier experience.

I said this to you, and you...completely ignored it. Every time I've said you're flipping the statement around which completely changes the meaning, you've ignored it.

This is playing semantics here. And no, it wasn't ignored because you are drawing an imaginary line to make a statement. And again, this goes into you not understanding what I said. My response is even if the change brought health, it was a side effect, not a goal of doing so. That is a response to it. It is pure arrogance on your part to draw imaginary divide and claim it was not addressed.

What I was discussing at the point had nothing to do with that though. I had a post saying it's wrong to keep bringing up GameFreak and acting as if people were talking about GameFreak when only you and Lahis brought them up, I point that out.

To which you cut the entire part of GameFreak out of my post, and then you say this-

False. I merely did not quote it in the reply because it does not alter the response. You complain about "dishonesty" but literally this is dishonest. "you didn't include this part that does not actually connect here, therefore you are dishonest." Rather than respond to my post, you made accusations.

Explain that then. You're accusing me of misrepresenting, but here you straight up cut out the fact that I was talking about GameFreak's logic and then you fire back about something else I said.

Because it is not RELEVANT to the origin point. Just because I and Lahis bring it up first does not discount it from the argument on whole. That's not how arguments work. You constantly bringing it up is purely to dismiss and misrepresent my argument, it serves no other purpose.

Because can you tell me once how anything you said has anything to do with the fact that Pokemon games do not have ban lists that are accessible in game, last I checked at least? My point was that it's more intuitive for people who want to play to know that basically any pokemon they have in the game will work fine.

You responded about legendaries and mythicals, which is the closest point I saw, but even then it's easier to just straight up have a mode that says "no mythicals/legendaries". Mythicals are the only ones that might be harder for the average player to know, but they're not in abundance in the game anyway so it's something they can pick up on quickly.

SwSh literally had rolling ban lists. One season of online competitive they BANNED the top 20 mon from the prior season (iirc, could have been 10, but I am pretty sure it was 20). And 20 pokemon banned is a huge ban when it comes to competitive when the dex is limited. They had events that banned certain mons from use. Sun and Moon first event was Alolan Dex only, despite not Alolan Dex (Island Scan) mons being in the game. later on, the ban was "only mons available in the game" which allowed the scans and wormhole varieties. I have listed more than just "Legendary and Mythicals." The first tournaments in Gen V were just Unovan mons (so less than 150 pokemon of the available 646 (Not counting Gen V mythicals as I don't know if any were available yet)).

I literally mentioned these before and now you are claiming I "only" mentioned mythicals/legendaries. I also brought up that certain G-max forms were banned until they had their event. I also mentioned that they banned transferred pokemon from competing. So, I didn't do "They ban Mythicals and Legendaries", and yet you claim you "understand my points."

To which I said...there's no point in continuing the argument then since you literally straight up said it's healthier.

My response is "Yes, it is an aspect/part of healthier, but doesn't necessary make it so." And then you had a hard time understand how that works or how someone could have that view.

And then you started to argue even that? I mean, this ignores the fact that it's easier to balance a smaller selection than it is to balance 1000+ pokemon. Which I'm pretty sure I've also mentioned a few times.

Which actually isn't necessarily true. Just because a number is smaller doesn't mean it is necessarily easier to balance. A single broken mon in a small pool can completely unbalance the game, while said mon could be lost in the shuffle in a larger pool which is something you said when talking about counters to it. So it isn't really a "fact" but an opinion that smaller means easier to balance. It isn't really that simple.

So saying it is a "fact" a smaller pool is easier to balance when that is just an opinion is dishonest. You are basically elevating an opinion to facthood and if someone disagrees with that opinion, they are wrong.

Again, irrelevant snark.

Which is 90% of what you do. I'd ignore the first comment, but you'll likely accuse me of "cutting that out."

This...just sounds like you're claiming your own win on a discussion somehow.

See above. You can't complain about snarky comments I make while then doing it yourself.

How is pointing out to you that it's counter intuitive to have pokemon in game and then suddenly find out your entire team is banned for rank, and hell even your backup team is banned, because there's absolutely no indication in game to figure that out until you go to try to do competitive?

You're genuinely trying to say that has nothing to do with what you said? I don't get how this is being missed.

If there's 1000 pokemon in game, and you can only use 300-400, you'd have to look up what is usable online.

Something that already happens, as I stated. You are saying "Wouldn't this suck if this happens?" ... my response is "Yeah, it already does."

If you have 300-400 in game, and can use 385, then chances are you'll be perfectly fine to use what you have. You said they can already limit what they have, so cutting the pokemon isn't valid.

To which I said that it feels bad to try to play online to find out your team isn't allowed, despite being in the game. There's a pretty big difference in the different situations, it just seems like you misunderstood what I was saying.

Given my response was again "That already happens" and you have shown no understanding that mons in the game have been banned despite me mentioning multiple historic bans that you are now pretending I didn't mention at all and yet want me to believe you "understood my point." The only difference is now than just having to deal with not being used in Competitive only, we don't even get to use them in single player too.

You quoted this twice and are making now a false claim about it.

As opposed to "You can't have this pokemon at all even in single player"?

And we already had online events that limited pokemon and you cannot use prior gen transferred pokemon online in SwSh unless you delete their moveset with an NPC in Wyndon. So, we already had the "You can't use that pokemon" online rejections in SwSh. And there were events that you couldn't use certain pokemon for.

For example, you can transfer up a Umbreon with Toxic, but it is forbidden from use online in SwSh.

Mythicals/legendries, banned G-max forms, banned transferred mons, and events where certain pokemon cannot be used.

Again, how do you expect me to believe you understand me when you made a false claim about what I stated?

And you response to the transfer mons was a non-response because just because there are more steps doesn't mean people didn't encounter the message wanting to use their transferred pokemon, and if they did, they had to look up outside the game on how to do it. Which again, is your problem on smoothness. The response for the banned G-max forms is "Well, it is so rare most players didn't find it." That's doesn't discount the point, if Gamefreak banned shinies only (something that has no value in competitive), you wouldn't go "Well, some people don't even have shinies or ever see one, so it impacts a low number of players." A ban is a ban regardless of how many people it affects.

People already have to do what you are saying would suck and have had to do so since Gen V. Given that you can be traded hacked pokemon with illegal movesets, unless you look at an outside source, you won't know why the mon you got in a surprise trade is not usable online. So, this argument of "It sucks to have to go to another source" is "Yeah, but that's been standard for the last 4 generations."

You built a hypothetical possibility that GameFreak could one day use (which they haven't) as an argument for why it is a smoother experience. That experience does not exist in the game both pre-dexit and post.

How many times does this make that you've just insulted arguments? you do you man, but this is pretty clearly telling if you have to keep retorting to mockery and insults.

Half as many times as you.

I especially like how you're accusing me of bringing us "down this path" when I said quite a bit ago I was done with this discussion. The only fault i have there is in not having the impulse control to actually stop responding.

Because rather than actually address what I said and take responsibility for what you said that led us here, you blamed me. It's my fault and you act like you're blameless.

[Jester Joe]

I like how I try to engage in a discussion, and you honestly think accusing and insulting someone constantly isn't problematic at all, but then you still try to blame me for that.

Go ahead and try to find a single time I called your posts "useless" or kept repeatedly saying that "you have a lack of understanding".

Because saying someone misunderstood you and telling them they have a lack of understanding are two completely different things.

And if you still fail to see the difference between banning 20 Pokemon out of 400 to banning 500 out of 1000, this is hopeless because you're intentionally missing my point.

Hell, you're still keep insisting that it's my opinion that you and Lahis brought up Gamefreak. I don't know how more clear it needs to be that you're not hearing what I'm saying.

[Darththeo]

I like how I try to engage in a discussion, and you honestly think accusing and insulting someone constantly isn't problematic at all, but then you still try to blame me for that.

I am going say, no, you aren't trying to engage in discussion. You came in and accused me of changing the topic from competitive to single player, despite the convo being about dexit itself, not just competitive. That's pretty clear evidence you weren't trying to engage in discussion. But, even if I grant you that was a mistake, you then go I am going down tangents that were in responses to what you said pretending that I was the one that opened that door. You opened it, I followed, and then you got mad I didn't follow it the way you wanted.

I am sorry, I cannot believe you were trying to engage in conversation.

Go ahead and try to find a single time I called your posts "useless" or kept repeatedly saying that "you have a lack of understanding".

No, you just accuse me of misquoting/misrepresenting you which is in the same vein. And my statement is you aren't understanding me.

Because saying someone misunderstood you and telling them they have a lack of understanding are two completely different things.

Semantics, it isn't. If you misunderstood someone, you did not understand them. If you do not understand them, you lack understanding of their argument. This is purely a semantic statement here. And when someone goes, you aren't understanding my argument and you go "I fully understand it" that's insulting, that's dishonest.

And if you still fail to see the difference between banning 20 Pokemon out of 400 to banning 500 out of 1000, this is hopeless because you're intentionally missing my point.

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I never claimed they were the same thing and there is no absolute difference. I am pointing out bans already happen, the number doesn't matter. Again, Gen V first competitions banned any non-Unovan Dex pokemon, this is pointing out bans of far more extreme measures have existed in pokemon before. The only functional difference between a ban and a dex cut, is that a dex cut removes the pokemon from all play, not just online official battles.

yes, 20 isn't as big as 500 being banned of a 1000, but banning over 500 mons of 649 happened in this series. This series at two points banned 500 mons. Gen V and Gen VII both had bans that large. The purpose of me bringing up the 20 ban is to point out that even with Dexit, Gamefreak will ban pokemon and therefore, your original point of being told you can't use this mon is going to happen regardless.

Your point is a hypothetical that could someday maybe exist if things go a certain route, while saying "Wouldn't this thing suck?" as if it didn't already happen at various levels. Banned pokemon lists have existed in every format that pokemon has had since Gen I, that ban list varied from a few, to nearly all the national dex. When I bring up Game Freak it is to show that that isn't how Game Freak operates and that your argument would only be valid if that was a reasonable possibility to expect. Notice, I am bringing up how Game Freak operates to point out that YOUR argument is unrealistic because everything you are saying is "bad" has happened, is happening, and likely to continue to happen. I am not claiming you are making any comment on Game Freak.

So, thank you for proving beyond all doubt, reasonable and unreasonable, you didn't understand my argument.

Hell, you're still keep insisting that it's my opinion that you and Lahis brought up Gamefreak. I don't know how more clear it needs to be that you're not hearing what I'm saying.

I never did this, this is how you viewed my posts. Every time I mentioned GameFreak was in relation to my own opinion, not yours. The only thing I gave you is that you stated the dex cut lead to healthier competitive. This is why I am saying you aren't understanding my opinion, because you make these statements on what I said, and rather than allow me to explain where you misunderstood, you shut down response saying we are off track. So, this loops back to I do not believe you are here to engage in conversation.

[Jester Joe]

I never did this, this is how you viewed my posts.

This was straight up quoting where I said you and Lahis brought up Gamefreaks logic.

First off, no, it isn't a fact regardless of what you believe

When I tried to clarify, this was what you said-

That is literally just talking about what you believe to be true. You are talking about what you seems to be, not what is. Therefore, that isn't a fact, but a belief.

This isn't exactly vague.


The fact that they've banned huge amounts of Pokemon before doesn't suddenly mean I agree that's the right way to do it either. Just because it's been done before doesn't mean I agree they should do it again. My point was between having a massive ban list or a smaller one with a smaller amount of Pokemon in the game, the smaller would be more preferred.

That's literally it. We're clearly past ever having all the Pokemon ever in a single game again, hence why I told you I wasn't talking about single player which was what you brought up immediately after my first post.