16,329
edits
Forum:Newcomers: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::::As for the Zelda/Sheik thing, true they have their own slot on the tier list together, but what is to say that if the trainer gimmick's faults were removed, they too would share that? One major difference is that the Zelda/Sheik transformation doesn't share the same risk that the pokemon switch does. And for a switch to be feasible, switching to another Pokemon would have to give you a greater advantage than you currently have assuming you're using the best pokemon for the matchup, and how often would that show up? If switching from Squirtle to live longer, you still have to make another switch after you get KO'd to get back to him, which in turn can lead to a free shot for the opponent and/or sacrificing a potential offensive opportunity. I intend to keep this brief, when comparing to Zelda/Sheik, switching is more difficult to do, and there is less practical opportunity to do so. Having a proper down special has a higher potential for benefit for them more than switching to another character would. The argument could be made for Zelda/Sheik as well. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 18:28, 28 March 2011 (EDT) | :::::As for the Zelda/Sheik thing, true they have their own slot on the tier list together, but what is to say that if the trainer gimmick's faults were removed, they too would share that? One major difference is that the Zelda/Sheik transformation doesn't share the same risk that the pokemon switch does. And for a switch to be feasible, switching to another Pokemon would have to give you a greater advantage than you currently have assuming you're using the best pokemon for the matchup, and how often would that show up? If switching from Squirtle to live longer, you still have to make another switch after you get KO'd to get back to him, which in turn can lead to a free shot for the opponent and/or sacrificing a potential offensive opportunity. I intend to keep this brief, when comparing to Zelda/Sheik, switching is more difficult to do, and there is less practical opportunity to do so. Having a proper down special has a higher potential for benefit for them more than switching to another character would. The argument could be made for Zelda/Sheik as well. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 18:28, 28 March 2011 (EDT) | ||
::::::How is Pokemon Change riskier? You're incorporeal for a brief amount of time and are then vulnerable for a few frames after the transformation. The risk is the same. Also, with switching after a KO, I said that a possible change would be the option to stay as your current Pokemon, so the option to switch would still be there. So if you wanted to you could die as Charizard and then respawn as Squirtle, no problem. Or you could respawn as Charizard, it's your choice. Another benefit to the PT without stamina is that you wouldn't have to have a secondary to beat counters to the PT if you main him because nobody can counter all three Pokemon. As for "more desireable" characters like Mewtwo and Roy, Roy was considered a clone of Marth. As much as I miss him, a new character gets priority over a clone. Mewtwo wasn't as popular anymore because Diamond/Pearl was the next big thing Pokemon wise. --[[User:Spenstar|Spenstar]] ([[User talk:Spenstar|talk]]) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (EDT) | ::::::How is Pokemon Change riskier? You're incorporeal for a brief amount of time and are then vulnerable for a few frames after the transformation. The risk is the same. Also, with switching after a KO, I said that a possible change would be the option to stay as your current Pokemon, so the option to switch would still be there. So if you wanted to you could die as Charizard and then respawn as Squirtle, no problem. Or you could respawn as Charizard, it's your choice. Another benefit to the PT without stamina is that you wouldn't have to have a secondary to beat counters to the PT if you main him because nobody can counter all three Pokemon. As for "more desireable" characters like Mewtwo and Roy, Roy was considered a clone of Marth. As much as I miss him, a new character gets priority over a clone. Mewtwo wasn't as popular anymore because Diamond/Pearl was the next big thing Pokemon wise. --[[User:Spenstar|Spenstar]] ([[User talk:Spenstar|talk]]) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (EDT) | ||
::::::::Pokemon change is riskier as it leaves the pokemon more vulnerable after the switch more than the Zelda/Sheik transformation. They don't take the same amount of time. And unlike with Zelda/Sheik, you have to cycle through another character to get back to the original character you were using. As for secondaries, if the trainer was changed to how we said, then yes, you are still learning "secondaries" to avoid being countered. You're treating the pokemon of the trainer as the same character, they're not. So if you're learning Charizard and Ivysaur in addition to Squirtle, you're still learning other characters to the same amount that learning Luigi and Snake in addition to Squirtle would be. So the argument "with the Pokemon Trainer, you don't have to learn secondaries" is wrong. The statement that no character counters all the pokemon is faulty as well, as there are characters who hold a matchup advantage against all three. And my original argument was in relation to this, why would you switch out from the pokemon that gave you the best matchup during the match if you could stay as them? Such as, if you were facing King Dedede, why would you ever want to switch from Squirtle when he has by far the matchup out of the three against him? And in this matchup, what would help you more? Having Squirtle with a potentially useful down special to aid in the matchup, or changing to a character that radically changes the matchup in the opponent's favor? | |||
::::::::As I said previously, the ability to change to another character midmatch is much better sounding that it actually is. There's a reason why Zelda/Sheik mainers rarely use the other character in the same match, or why you never see a Samus utilise the taunt trick to change to Zamus midmatch in a serious match. | |||
::::::::As for Roy being a cloned, why couldn't he be decloned? Falco and Ganondorf got decloned to a degree, Roy could of been as well, which would again, I'm sure would be the more popular choice over an individual pokemon of the Pokemon Trainer. As for Mewtwo "not being as popular anymore because Diamond/Pearl was the next big thing Pokemon wise", I don't see the logic behind that. Even if for some reason the new generation made him less popular, it would of done so to the pokemon of the Pokemon Trainer, and Mewtwo would of kept his significance. | |||
::::::::But regardless, with the Pokemon Trainer as is, you got a terrible gimmick that severely limits the characters involved in a way no other character is limited. And with the detriment of that gimmick removed, you're left with essentially three stand alone characters, whose character slot would be better filled by more deserving/popular characters. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 20:29, 28 March 2011 (EDT) | |||