>try to cover as many weaknesses as possible when I make a

Anyone?

>>33186002
>whyGen4wastheworst.png

>>33186002
That's what keeps the meta thriving, that there is no catch-all team. Everyone can have a glaring weakness. Even if you account for every big threat (Volcarona, Protean Greninja, Kyurem-B, Lando-T) and have a win con for playing against stall, you can still lose to Trick Room teams or some arbitrary setup sweeper you didn't expect to see or just hax.

its happens a lot. Many ppl actually think on those possible gimmicks and make the team to counter it. Its pretty common at battle spot teambuilding because we often dont battle more than 1 time with the same opponent. Sometimes adding a haze or roar can actually save you from those gimmicks.

>>33186002
I always thought powercreep was gen 5 but i guess it was 4

>>33186002
>median base stat totals
>not average

>>33186277
>arbitrary setup sweeper

That's really the only one

There's so many different ways to reliably boost a Pokemon to monster-status now. It's easy as fuck to just throw these Pokemon on your team and their counters are usually stupid specific.

>>33186330
Gen 4 is skewed by all of the new evolutions but a lot of them aren't even accessible until post game.

>>33186277
I feel like I'd rather it focus more around the choices I make in battle over what Pokemon I picked before. What You're describing ends up more like rock paper scissors than a healthy competative meta.

>>33186446
>but a lot of them aren't even accessible until post game
You don't understand what he meant at all, did you?

File: 1500666679557.jpg (561KB, 1280x929px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1280x929px

>>33186367
I feel like median in this case is better because it displays the BST distribution of all the pokemon that gen better than just using the average. Think about it: the gen 4 total and gen 7 totals are 480. That means that the number of pokemon released that gen with BSTs higher than or equal to that number is half of the pokemon in that generation. On the other hand, Gen 1-3 are all 415 and under, meaning half the pokemon released in those gens had totals below that amount.
Though Gen 4 and Gen 7 both introduced high numbers of legendaries/psuedos to the game, so there is also that.

>>33186546
There's also the matter of more recent Pokemon being less likely to have retarded stat distributions that didn't mesh with their movepools.

>>33186571
Which plays into power creep, the topic of this thread. They're getting better about designing pokemon for specific roles rather than just releasing a bunch of monsters with random stats and movepools. They're releasing more high-BST pokemon because they know they can min-max in certain areas to better fit it into a niche. Optimization and efficiency are a form of powercreep.

>>33186473
I mean, Pokemon is a rock-paper-scissors game that's broadened to include many objects that beat each other. Hell, the starters demonstrate that right away.

>>33186002
>spend a whole day breeding that one Sigilyph set, you know the one
>go online
>FIRST FUCKING BATTLE is a fucking Houndoom

>>33186725
hahahahahahahaha

>>33186640
So to offset powercreep, GF should go through the older generational mons and fix their stats accordingly?

>>33186002
Legendaries were a mistake

Gen 7 probably had he worst overall speed of all the Generations

>>33186571
And then there's Lurantis...

>>33186935
They did. Gen 6 retconned a lot of older gen BSTs.

>>33186239

>Take a bunch of shitmons
>Make them semi-viable by giving them evolutions
>Worst

>median
>invented by kikes to """prove""" their point when the data doesnt match

nice

>>33186703
Well yeah it's advanced rock paper scissors where you can take all sorts of precautions to make sure your scissors aren't completely fucked by rock but I feel like those precautions aren't nearly as reliable, I can't play around my weaknesses, I just need to NOT HAVE weaknesses.

>>33187083
Its quite literally the opposite, you can manipulate an average much easier than a median.

>>33187331
Remove the legendaries and Slaking since they are outliers plus nfe mons since they rarely see battle usage. However, mons with legacy evolutions should be counted towards the bst for their respective gens. (You would count Chansey towards the Gen 1 avg, but not towards Gen 2's and so on. ezpz.

With rounding the avg Gen 1 BST should be 468.

>>33187608
>by my equally arbitrary rules the number should be only slightly different than the original post

T-thanks?

File: tumblr_inline_nxfe9vGlrP1rqbbvq_500.png (230KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 500x443px

>>33187629
>arbitrary
>slightly different

>>33186473
Team building is half of the game. This is true in any game that features a teambuilding aspect, mainly TCGs. The skill in teambuilding comes from both predicting which teams you'll run into and minimizing no-win situations.

>>33186725
>breeding
You deserve it

>>33187673
It would be skillfull if it was randomized or something and you had to figure it out, but it's not, and the objectively best builds are just a quick Google search away.

It's like, yeah during Gen 5 (which I'm most familiar with) there were less options because weather was so OP, but weather being so dominant was nice because it was all about the deep interplay of those different sets.

Now it's just like hey I hope you aren't running X because if you run into Y You're straight up fucked. It wasn't like that before. I used to reliably beat copy-paste OU rain teams with goofy shit like trick room and hail stall. You can't do that now

Well, you can still beat rain with TR and Hail, but nobody runs any of that shit, you know what I mean. It isn't enough to just outsmart your opponent, you have to outsmart them AND be running counters to their shit.

Honestly, I blame shit like sticky web and knockoff for ruining revenge killers and making this the fucking era of setup sweepers.

Any other charts like this?

>median
>not starting the scale at 0
It's almost like you wanted to misrepresent something