So /vp/, why aren't YOU a karenfag yet?

Now you're just shitposting. Also,
>pic related
lol nope

>>32913903
>Now you're just shitposting.
You're just mad that there are still people who don't conform to your tiers meme.

But what if Magearna, Zygarde, Smogonpex, Grenigger and whatnot are my favourites?

But Pachirisu was chosen specifically because it was good in the format...

This is why AG is the best. I can use my bro Ambipom and my second fave, the overpowered(?) Blaziken, along with other Pokémon I like. People usually do the same.

File: d38bc1ddf1ed37f7221a8342f2e4cee58d1b6dd5a0f1026b209550d7b0caef86.jpg (43KB, 685x538px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 685x538px

>>32913891
>mfw I'll always use the best shit available to me and nobody can stop me
You can use what you like but don't expect to win

>>32914094
Nope, couldn't care less. I just don't like when a retard felt the need to make another copy of a dead thread. Or to put it differently,
>A thread died for this

>>32913891
But what if my favorite pokemon IS Greninja?

What if my favourites are my favourites because of how good they are?

>>32914137
Another thing to add, I generally dislike misinformation, so fuck you OP.

File: 1251945057260.jpg (27KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 312x445px

>>32914123
im using what i like and im having fun. if you live for winning you will only end up in the higher tiers where you win half, lose half, and will only have fun half the time. ill be in lower tier, win half, lose half and have 100% fun.

karenfagging is the way to play.

Pic is not related. Pachi became his favorite after the fact.

>>32914501
You're just mad people are freeing themselves from your meme format and shining with their favorites.

>>32914105
>>32914139
>>32914140
You're a liar.

>>32914119
>>32914501
Pachirisu is a Karen mascot because it is an unusual choice in the world of Garchomps and Gyaradoses.

>>32914121
AG is garbage.

>>32914123
You might win, but you won't have fun.

>>32914743
>You're a liar.
You can't be a liar for proposing a hypothetical situation you dip.

>>32914121
Same my favourites are Mega Rayquaza and 5 Arceus

>>32914743
Unusual choices does not make a Karenmon; favoritism does.
Sejun made a calculated choice with Pachi, not because it's his favorite. Ergo, Sejun is not a Karenfag.

File: 6b8db024990878290f10f4760e28bc8e27d3d9e2c9e569a2fce693b946ea2828.png (171KB, 400x369px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 400x369px

>>32914743
Winning is fun. Crushing people is fun. Making people realize why we have tiers is fun.

>>32914105
>>32914139
than you are a kerenfag.

>>32914140
>i will only like them as long as they good
so in battles you lost they won't be your favorites and you ended up using pokemons you don't like to an end result you don't want. congrats.

File: taking the bait.jpg (50KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x800px

>>32914730
>states fact
>lol u mad?
Fuck it man, at least put some effort into it.

>>32914780
being a karenfag, im having fun winning or losing.

>Pachirisu argument again
It filled a niche role in Sejun's team you fags
It was never the squirrel, just Sejun's ability and team-building skill

File: 1479018180192.jpg (18KB, 353x239px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 353x239px

>>32914819
>I enjoy losing

>>32914825
>It was never the squirrel, just Sejun's ability and team-building skill
But that's exactly what being a karenfag is about, anon.
He used one of his favorite pokemon even though it wasn't as good as the high tiers and won.

>>32914819
A good game with someone is fun even if you lose. See, I only get those with other good players, not brainless retards lower down on the ladder. It's because I play to win that I can have fun.
I don't expect you to understand, but just try and think why someone wants to improve and be the best they can be

>>32914830
I'd rather have 50 fun games with 25 Ws than 50 lame games with 50 Ws.

File: 1492089658149.jpg (33KB, 314x233px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 314x233px

>>32914843
>Winning is boring, losing is fun!

>>32914853
Winning itself isn't boring OR fun. It's the game itself that decides that.
6-0ing someone because of a sweep isn't nearly as fun as a challenging 1-0 finish.

>>32914806
>>i will only like them as long as they good
That's not what I said.

>so in battles you lost they won't be your favorites
That's not logical.

Using Pokemon that you'd otherwise not use broadens your horizons. I unironically like Pokemon like Ferrothorn, Hoopa and Mandibuzz now because I first tried using them in OU. That being said, I won't suddenly start liking Charizard because it's so viable, and I never choose to use it. Not all Pokemon were made to be good, and by understanding this I can save time that would've been spent complaining to /vp/ that Unown isn't viable.
Also >>32914780

File: b26STFj.png (160KB, 651x923px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 651x923px

>>32914837
>This is a karenfagging team
Calling Sejun a karenfag is ridiculous. Some Pokémon are objectively better than others, and that's fine. If you can make a shitmon useful like Sejun did, good on you. But don't expect to win with a team of 6 PU mons just because they're your favorites.

>>32914876
>Scarf Swagger
Explain

File: 1435104566236.jpg (8KB, 255x220px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 255x220px

>>32914864
>I do not like winning
>Winning is only fun when I'm almost losing

>>32914837
Sejun, when asked in an interview, said that he chose Pachirisu because he assume people will be able to predict his first choice Amoonguss. It was NEVER favoritism on his part; merely because Pachirisu could do something that he wanted.
If anything, Sejun's a Grimsley.
>you have to use the tools you're given
>It's more important to master the cards you're holding than to complain about the ones your opponents were dealt
He master his cards well, and it shows.

>>32914830
i enjoy playing. losing is as much a part of playing competetive as is winning.
i know that for you, losing has no merits; but as long as im with my favs im having fun.
(unless i get completly trashed, but i just forfeit if things start to go south. or at any other time the battle stops being fun)

>>32914841
>i enjoy losing @_@
jokes aside,
you didn't say you ware having fun playing. you said you have fun winning, so i told you losing can also be fun- don't try to pretend its something i don't understand.

>only higher tiers have good players
there are good players in lower tiers if their teams are not top notch.
>its because i play to win that i have fun even when losing
good to know you are having fun because win or lose, you gave it your all, but we karenfags still have the additional fun of using the pokemons we like.

>>32914865
you said you only like them because they are good. ergo, once they stop being good you will stop loving them. thats why i assumed that even if they fare poorly in battle, youd stop liking them.
if you will continue to like them even when they fail you, you are a karenfag.

>>32914882
the victory is sweeter on a sweep, but the GAME is more fun when there is a challange.

>>32914882
Yeah, actually. It's called a thrill, and increases adrenaline.

>>32914904
>you said you only like them because they are good.
Read >>32914865
>That's not what I said.

>>32914914
well,
>>32914140
>my favourites are my favourites because of how good they are
thats excatly what you said. did I misunderstand you somewhat?

>>32914879
An item he likes on a mon he likes. Naturally, a smogonfag like you would never understand.

>>32914932
>did I misunderstand you somewhat?
Yes, that's what I've been posting for 2 posts now. Just how fucking illiterate are you?

>>32914940
enlighten me. when you said
>my favourites are my favourites because of how good they are
you didn't mean
>I only like them because they are good
which is basiclly the same.

you actually meant
><insert backtracking here>
and you simply had wrong phrasing.

>>32914879
If the match-up is really bad and Gardevoir is still not locked in a move, but you can't switch, then can use it to confuse both of your opponent's pokemon while your other pokemon deal the damage. It's basically a "if things get really bad press this and pray" button

>>32914955
>when you said
>>my favourites are my favourites because of how good they are
>you didn't mean
>>I only like them because they are good
No, if I meant that I would've said that.

>which is basiclly the same.
No it's not. Words actually mean things you know, you can't just insert random words and expect the message to be the same.

>you actually meant
>><insert backtracking here>
No. I just meant the thing I posted, not the thing you made of it.

>and you simply had wrong phrasing.
Fuck no.

>>32914970
alright
if you are stuck on that phrasing, let it be so.


>>32914865
you said they are your favourites because of how good they are. ergo, once they are no longer good they will stop being your favourites. thats why i assumed that when they fare poorly in battle, they'd stop being your favourites.
if you will continue to like them even when they fail you, you are a karenfag.

>>32915003
>once they are no longer good they will stop being your favourites.
Again, that's not logical.

>thats why i assumed that when they fare poorly in battle, they'd stop being your favourites.
And that's not true because they can still be good, even if you lose a battle. Good in one situation does not mean good in another, good in general does not mean good in all situations.

>>32915013
>that's not logical.
if the reason you like them is how good they are
than once that reason is gone what reason is left for them to still be your favourites?

>Good in one situation does not mean good in another
well... lets try a bigger approach
1. if the power creep catchs up to your mons, would you still like them?
2. if they fare well in other metas, would you still like them?
3. if they recieved a serious nerf by game mech/ banlists, would you still like them?
if you answered 'yes' to all of those, you are a karenfag.

>>32915058
*2. if they don't fare well in other metas, would you still like them?

File: 1498899091711.jpg (56KB, 1234x1234px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1234x1234px

>>32915003
>if you will continue to like them even when they fail you, you are a karenfag
Not that Anon but almost all of my favourites are PU. I will always love them. I am never going to attempt to use them in a situation where they clearly can't do anything, so I am not winning with my favourites. That would mean I'm not a karenfag.

>>32915058
>than once that reason is gone what reason is left for them to still be your favourites?
Other reasons obviously.

>1. if the power creep catchs up to your mons, would you still like them?
>3. if they recieved a serious nerf by game mech/ banlists, would you still like them?
In this hypothetical situation, I'd say probably not. Except if you used them for a really long time or something.
>>32915062
Yes.

>>32915076
wrong phrasing on my part. i should have asked about use, not about like. but for the person i talked with, both means the same.

>>32915078
alright i don't get you
your first part of your post you imply they will still be your favs even if they stop being good

and in the second one you said youd stop liking them once you can't reliably use them in your fav meta

i think those two parts contradict

>>32914904
>>only higher tiers have good players
That's not what he said at all.
He's taking about the ladder. Of course there's good RU players, NU players, etc.

>>32915130
even in the ladder, there are people who bring nu mons to play in ou because the strongest mon in their team is also ou.

>>32915121
>alright i don't get you
Yeah, that's been clear from the start mate. You are pretty stupid.

>your first part of your post you imply they will still be your favs even if they stop being good
>
>and in the second one you said youd stop liking them once you can't reliably use them in your fav meta
>
>i think those two parts contradict
They don't. In the first part you're asking what could possibly be a reason for them to be your favourites, a hypothetical situation which could exist. And in the second part I say it's probably not going to be my favourite, keyword probably.
There's a possibility for them to remain the favourite, but probably not.

>>32915156
well, at least now you agree its not completly illogical for pokemons to stop being your favurites once they stop faring well in battles.

the real issue now is,
the fact you still like them even when they lose because surely its just a momentery setback and doesn't reflect how awasome they actually are. they brought you to high tiers, so it stands to reason that here you will face hard battles.
you will continue climbing the ladder till you reach your level, in which there will be much more loses than you had till now. would losing half the time (cuz you are high ladder now) cloud your like to those mons?

>>32915249
You keep bringing up these unrelated situations, the question I asked was pretty fucking simple.

>>32915277
alright...

in that case ill just need to clarify what 'good' means
1. high in the ladder before wins equaling my loses
2. get much more wins than loses (please state format)
3. something else

>>32913891
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

>>32915325
>in that case ill just need to clarify what 'good' means
Go ahead.

>>32915357
i meant, what you meant when you said 'good' in ' how good they are'
you either like them because they bring more wiins than loses (which, after enough wins you will reach people you levels and wont have any more wins than loses)
or like them because they have good stats/moves/abilities.
or perhaps something else.

what is it?

>>32915417
Okay, so when you said "i", you meant the opposite. That's logical.

>or like them because they have good stats/moves/abilities.
This basically, because this determines how good a pokemon is, which determines how easy it is to win/how many situations you can win in.
Good is a pretty simple word, and again it's irrelevant to my question.

>>32915447
>This basically, because this determines how good a pokemon is
No, your ability in using it determines how good a pokemon is.

>>32915462
That's retarded, just because somebody's bad at using a pokemon, doesn't make that pokemon bad.

File: 241.png (1KB, 60x60px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 60x60px

>>32913891
But I do. I have a team I made of my favorites that I try to use as competitively as I can that I use against friends and people at cons and such.
But I also have a competitive team that I use online if it comes to that.

I love using my favorites though, I play doubles and people never see my miltank using psych up to copy my Lickilicky's Belly Drum coming.

>>32915471
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that 9(% of all fully evolved Pokemon are good in the right hands, obvious exclusions like Unown.

>>32915447
i meant 'i need to clarify (with you)', duh.

and you just lied.
earlier you said youd stop using them if they get nerfed by banlists/ new game mech.
but those pokemons stil have good stats even if suddenly GF invents a new type that fucks them up.

its relevant to your question, as your question has the word 'good' in it. spore is a good move. sleep clause nerfed it. ban got rid of moody as well. just because a pokemon fare well in the meta doesn't mean its a good pokemon.

that means that good pokemons can fare bed in the meta because bans.

that means you can like pokemons even if they fare bad in the meta as long as the pokemons themselves are good.

which means.... no reason to continue this line of thought, we both know that your 'good' takes into account viability.

so lets jump straight to answer your question, now that im certain what kind of person im talking with:

tl;dr
you aren't a karenfag. karenfag makes their favs shine, not take already shining pokemons and makes them their favorites.

this answer could have come sooner, but i had to make sure, since you insisted you wouldn't stop liking them once they start dropping in win ratio.

>>32915494
Then you shouldn't have said "determines how good a pokemon is."
>>32915544
>>and you just lied.
You can't lie in a hypothetical situation.

>earlier you said youd stop using them if they get nerfed by banlists/ new game mech.
>but those pokemons stil have good stats even if suddenly GF invents a new type that fucks them up.
Yes, both of those can be true. This person would stop using them in both situations.

I literally can't read what the fuck you're saying in the rest of the post.

>>32915587
tl;dr you aren't karenfag because you don't care for pokemons unless they are strong.

>but its hypotethical
we ware conversing within the bounderies of that hypothetical situation. if you change the imaginary settings in the middle its dishonesty. pick a situation and stick with it or at least tell when the situation changes and old answers no longer apply.

>no contradictions
if they have good stats and he stoped using them than he didn't use them for the stats, and when he siad 'good' he didn't mean the stats but something else that came from those stats. i would ask what is that something else, but it doesnt matter as i answered your question after making sure he really wouldn't like them during battles he is losing. (as evident by the rest of your answers)

>>32915686
Really mate, your shit is indecipherable.

>>32915701
as long as you got the tl;dr than its fine.

>>32915720
I really think you used some wonky logic in between though.

>>32915739
see you next time, argument kun.

Has anyone here played Magic the Gathering? There are three psychological types, Timmy, Johnny, and Spike. Karenfags and casuals who couldn't care less are Timmy. Smogonfags are Spikes. Johnnies don't really exist in pokemon but basically they want to do weird unexpected stuff. That's kind of watered down and there's a lot of overlap but anyways
I'm bringing it up because they each have fun differently and this is understood by the magic community. Spikes/Smogonfags will use efficient strategies even if someone else made them, because that lets them have fun easier. Karenfags will have fun using their favorites, so they use their favorites. There's no reason to argue about this because it literally does not matter.

>>32915889
johnnies definitely exist, they're just not as prominent. they're the people who look at a gimmicky move/mon and say "let's try to make this work"

also you're a fucking nerd get off my board

>>32915889
>There's no reason to argue about this because it literally does not matter.
Welcome to 4chan.

>>32915902
yeah you're right i didn't realize until after i posted
and no

>>32915889
>Has anyone here played Magic the Gathering?
I seriously hope you guys don't do this

>>32916032
okay i get it I'm a fag let's move on

>>32916087
don't mind him, /tg/ is best board.