A place for pokemon players to chat, trade, battle and other pokemon related activities
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Welcome to Pokemon Wars!
March's Pokemon of the month is Latios!

Share | 
 

 Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

Do you agree with changing the Super-Effective Clause?
Yes, the clause should be changed to: Only 2 super-effective pokemon, any amount of super-effective moves.
42%
 42% [ 5 ]
No, the clause should remain: Only 2 super-effective pokemon, only 2 super-effective moves
58%
 58% [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 12
 

AuthorMessage
DJNoClue
Fairy/Fire Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-26
Age : 19

PostSubject: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:52 pm

As we all know, the super-effective clause of Pokemon Wars (located here: http://pokemonwars.forumotion.com/t609-pokemon-wars-general-battle-rules) is a part of all official gym and elite four battles.

The first part of the clause dictates that "No more than two super effective pokemon. This means you can't have more than two pokemon of a type that is super effective against the gym leader/elite 4 member's type." For example, If the gym leader's type is FIRE, you may only bring 2 pokemon with types that match any of FIRE's weaknesses (water, rock, and ground). This part of the rule I am fine with and should be left as is.

However, I challenge the second part of the clause. This part dictates that "You also can't have more than two pokemon with super effective moves against the gym leader/elite 4 member's type." Now including the first part, this would mean your 2 super-effective typed pokemon would be the only ones with super-effective moves. What about coverage moves? Another pokemon on your team could have a move meant for coverage that could coincidentally be the same as one of the gym's type weaknesses. Do you would either:
A( Have to change your pokemon's moveset just for 1 BATTLE (which may not be an option with egg moves)
or B( Be prevented from using your pokemon just because of the coverage move(s)

Also, what about types with a plethora of weaknesses. Consider battling an Elite 4 member with the types Rock/Bug
These 2 types combined have 8 weaknesses: Fire, Water, Grass, Ground, Rock, Fighting, Flying, Steel. Right away you would only be able to have 2 moves that matched2 of these 8 types, and the rest on your entire team would have to be different. That means you would be down 8/18 (roughly 44% of the types) and only have 10 types to match with the rest of your pokemon's movesets. You would literally have to build a team specifically for that particular battle. Not to mention you would be pretty easy to predict since 4 pokemon on your team would only have moves that matched with the 10 types Rock/Bug aren't weak to.

Given this reasoning, I think that the First part of the super-effective clause (only 2 super-effectively typed pokemon) should remain the same, while the second part (only 2 super-effectively typed moves) should be changed to unlimited.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Flash18
Electric Gym Leader


Posts : 50
Join date : 2013-08-30
Age : 30
Location : Mexico City

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:57 pm

what you mean is that... for my electric gym.. challengers can bring 2 ground types..and 4 pokemon with a graound move each? a total of 6 pokemon with super efective moves???? wich would leave me in such clear disadvantage?
am i right in my interpretation? if i am.. i would like to opose to your proposal Razz
Back to top Go down
View user profile
[PN] Dark Lord
Dark/Psychic Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 626
Join date : 2013-11-27
Age : 27
Location : Centre of the Earth

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:03 pm

I have to agree with DJ here. I feel the second part of the rule is a bit over the top.
While you will get the few sad people who will just change all there Pokémon to have super effective moves most wont. They will bring there pokemon. unfortunately its one extreme or the other and I don't like having to insure my Pokémon aren't carrying any move I might use super effective to the gym I battle.

While DJ is incorrect about E4 battles, you only have to worry about the main E4 typing not both parts, I agree with him on the example. Some pokemon have a lot more weaknesses and having to remove all Pokémon strong to the gym can be bad enough. Rock has 5 weaknesses! already your having to cut out at least 3 pokemon types.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
DJNoClue
Fairy/Fire Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-26
Age : 19

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:04 pm

Well, think about it. IF you're an electric type gym, it should be in you're strategy to deal with ground type moves, since it is your ONLY weakness. You shouldn't rely on the shielding of the clause to get you through battles. Also think about the Rock/Bug example. Would you want to use a team where 4 of your pokemon were forced to only have moves from 10 types that were either neutral or resisted by the E4 type?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
DJNoClue
Fairy/Fire Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 79
Join date : 2013-06-26
Age : 19

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:06 pm

Granted i may have been wrong about the number, but the restriction is still there Flash
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Envidira
Poison Gym Leader
avatar

Posts : 191
Join date : 2013-08-14
Age : 20
Location : Chillin' in Hyrule

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:19 pm

Okay, I definitely see your reasoning and have had personal conflict with this rule in the past. Thus, I am in agreement with you DJ. The first rule makes plenty of sense, only two supereffective Pokemon allowed per gym match. However, I find it inconvenient to make challengers(myself included) change the movesets of their Pokemon in order to take on whichever gym they're challenging.

When someone spends time breeding and preparing a moveset for a Pokemon, I'm pretty sure the last thing that they want to do is go around changing all their super effective moves. Especially if, like DJ said, they're egg moves. Not to mention I've gone into gym battles and forgotten to change my moveset, and ended up two moves short. THAT, poses a true problem in the middle of a match.

So yes. I definitely agree and think this rule should be taken out.

_________________

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Blue
Tamer
Tamer
avatar

Posts : 266
Join date : 2013-07-25
Age : 23
Location : Winterfell

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:46 pm

That would make gyms like flash and fars very easy as all you would need to do is spam earthquake and surf. What's fair about that?
Why not keep the rule in place but allow 1 extra pokemon with a super effective move rather than get rid of it all together, a compromise for both sides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
GiantWhirlpool
Champion
Champion
avatar

Posts : 353
Join date : 2014-05-17
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:21 pm

I agree with blue, its about finding a balance
we need some testing to find out a good number to limit to cause any number is a bit extreme while 2 limits possibilities and options as well as disrupts the delicate work put into each and every poke we breed

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Burliest Bear
Flying/Ghost Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 431
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 31

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:05 am

I disagree with the unlimited number, but you know my feelings on the issue already, so I won't be voting in the poll.

I still think my interpretation of the rule, as written, is a fairly balanced solution:

Two (2) typed against the gym and two (2) additional pokes allowed super-effective moves.

This grants a challenging team 1/3 super-effective STAB, 1/3 super-effective non-STAB and 1/3 non-super-effective. Given that gym leaders will type their pokes against their STAB opposition, this presents a level playing field.

_________________
Come on down to the Love Shack, baby.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
far257
Fire Gym Leader


Posts : 415
Join date : 2013-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:38 pm

how about 2 super effective moves but no limit on the defensive typing?

_________________
3ds friend code: 1822-0013-0289
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SickSouls
Fighting/Electric Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2013-05-26
Age : 21
Location : Melancholy Hill

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:51 pm

Flash, I see where you're coming from, being the gym leader of a type with one weakness, but a wise pokemon character whose name I forgot once said "turn your disadvantage into an advantage", something like that... There are many ways you can still ensure victory in your electric type gym. E.g., shiva berries, dual electrics with secondary flying type, levitate ability, air balloon item, hidden power ice, etc.

I have to say it's nice to see such coherence among our members. Just look at Pool's grammar! Razz

Guys, what do you all think about allowing the new rule regarding super effective pokemon for one week and se just how challenging the gym leaders and challengers find it? We could even have some gym leaders post their battle videos and see just how big an edge this gives the gym leaders. Don't mock it till you try it; I personally want to see this new rule in action.

Also, what about the E4's? Can't we just allow the challenger to bring in as many pokemon of whatever type they like as long as they stick to the same team (nine selected pokemon)?

_________________


-Omac15
(thanks, bud!)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
GiantWhirlpool
Champion
Champion
avatar

Posts : 353
Join date : 2014-05-17
Age : 20

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:44 am

HEY. My grammer is good I just dont feel like using punctuation!

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Burliest Bear
Flying/Ghost Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 431
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 31

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:05 am

I can tell. Razz

_________________
Come on down to the Love Shack, baby.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
far257
Fire Gym Leader


Posts : 415
Join date : 2013-09-28

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:35 pm

Yf wrote:
I disagree with the unlimited number, but you know my feelings on the issue already, so I won't be voting in the poll.

I still think my interpretation of the rule, as written, is a fairly balanced solution:

Two (2) typed against the gym and two (2) additional pokes allowed super-effective moves.

This grants a challenging team 1/3 super-effective STAB, 1/3 super-effective non-STAB and 1/3 non-super-effective. Given that gym leaders will type their pokes against their STAB opposition, this presents a level playing field.

^this.

+1

_________________
3ds friend code: 1822-0013-0289
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SickSouls
Fighting/Electric Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2013-05-26
Age : 21
Location : Melancholy Hill

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:45 pm

I say we do so as well, at least to see how it works out.

_________________


-Omac15
(thanks, bud!)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
[PN] Dark Lord
Dark/Psychic Elite 4
avatar

Posts : 626
Join date : 2013-11-27
Age : 27
Location : Centre of the Earth

PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:46 pm

Ok. I rule that the Super effective clause will be from hence forth, Any challenger my bring only 2 Pokémon of a type advantage to a gym match. In addition to this, a challenger may use two more Pokémon with moves super effective to the gym's type. any challenger to break these rules will no received a badge.

This should keep every side happy.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause   

Back to top Go down
 
Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Case DJ-065647 DJNoClue Vs. PW Super-effective Clause
» Fun and Game: It's Super Effective!
» Id Super Pack On Steam
» In Case of Collapse of Civilization Break Glass
» Monster Land/Super Wolfhell Updates

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Pokemon Wars :: Battles :: Pokemon Wars Court-
Jump to: