Clarifying the feats for 7-As in Pokemon

[GyroNutz]

Hey

I'll keep this fairly brief. To get a "+" on profiles, you need a feat that is in the upper half of the tier. The cutoff point for this in 7-A is 550 megatons. The current feats for 7-As are no-selling defog and Pupitar toppling a mountain, coming in at 326(?) megatons and 531 megatons respectively. Even though the 7-A Pokemon scale above this, that's not enough to get them the "+" on their profiles, and I believe something similar happened to the Steven Universe profiles too.

There is another feat which is in the upper half of 7-A (790.31 megatons). SomebodyData recently called it into question, as the statement was about a specific Charizard from PMD. This is what the editing rules for species profiles says about this:

"However, these profiles should not include exceedingly extraordinary or underwhelming feats and abilities from notable individuals of a species, and the viability of these profiles are determined on a case-by-case basis."

Essentially PMD Charizard's statement may be fine because it's only about 1.5x stronger than the next usable feat, and Charizard's pokedex entries say it can melt anything, which while it shouldn't be taken 100% literally, it somewhat supports the PMD statement.

 

[Overlord775]

Saying that Tyranitar is not even 1.03 times stronger than Pupitar is completly absurd

thought, i don't see why Pupitar's feat is not called an outlier, since he's a second stage pokemons which are considered High 7-C

 

[GyroNutz]

That's not the point. You cannot get the "+" by upscaling, you have to have a calced feat in that range.

 

[The_Calaca]

>Steven Universe

Yeah, we had a very long discussion about this.

As for Pupitar's calc, I guess some people might call it an outlier

 

[GyroNutz]

To be fair, Tyranitar can perform the same feat via pokedex statements.

 

[Moritzva]

Just a few questions (Not a full discussion, in order to not flood the thread

Do we disallow arguments that would imply their AP is above the line, such as 550 MT (via upscaling)? Obviously, Tyranitar is more than 1.03x stronger, but even if he can't have a +, do we just completely disregard the thought of their AP likely being higher?

If so, there are some problems with that, but not for here.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I really feel like the rule against + was only put there to stop people from upscaling people from baseline to there because they one-shot a lot.

Would anyone mind if I make a crt to reword that rule? A 1.03 increase in power should be perfectly fine to assume and should be allowed really.

 

[GyroNutz]

Would anyone mind if I make a crt to reword that rule? A 1.03 increase in power should be perfectly fine to assume and should be allowed really.

Yeah go for it

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Thread:3911656

 

[SomebodyData]

If the + rules change, I don't really mind, but (though this may technically be off-topic, not sure) as I mentioned, I have doubts about treating a feat of a move literally called and shown as the action of thrashing as a singular hit, as the calc seems to imply.

Though if Tyranitar can do the same in one hit, it'll just affect Pupitar like Gyro said.

#WhyAreAllTheStaffIntoPokemonConspiracy

 

[Overlord775]

I am not a Staff member tho <-<

 

[SomebodyData]

I've been searching through his pokedex entries, and its really heavily implied that Pupitar likes to thrash a lot, which really tells me that this is probably a feat that takes place through multiple hits rather than one.

"This troublesome Pokémon can't wait to evolve, so it relieves its stress by wildly propelling itself around using compressed gas".

Additionally, the original calc assumes Mt.Silver as the standard, when its based on the 35th tallest mountain in the world, and is definitely not destroyed. That and it the very assumption is wrong, given only Crystal and the remakes have Pupitar on Mt.Silver, only HeartGold does (And its obviously not toppled)

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Larvitar exists, bro

 

[SomebodyData]

Yes

I'm just talking about Pupitar though. And using the 35th tallest mountain in the world as a standard being a bit stange when its equivalent is undamaged.

If anything, isn't that a point in your favor? If a bunch of Pupitar exist on Mt. Silver, and the mountain is still intact, that would incredibly reduce the feat. If anything, how I'm treating it, which would at least keep it tier 7-B is better, if an entire species can't toppel Mt.Silver, then that just makes it untierable altogether.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The thing is Mt Silver is the only mountain the Pokes are found when the Pokedex entry was first written. It's not that they did but they could.

 

[SomebodyData]

Well Pupitar no, Lavitar yes. That would imply Lavitar generally don't end up evolving on Mt. Silver, that they do in other mountains.

They can, just not Mt. Silver. Otherwise either the Mt. Silver is destroyed or an entire species of pupitr can't topple Mt. Silver, which just makes the feat unusable. There is nothing implying this is a hypothetical.

Like I said, using a regular mountain with several hits from thrashing about a lot is a middle-end I'm proposing that still is a functional feat, but if we wanna go one end or the other, than the evidence points to the unvalid end.

 

[Overlord775]

Puptar feat should be thrown out either way since it's an outlier for 2nd stage pokemons, why not just use Tyranitar's feat ?

 

[SomebodyData]

Tyranitar has a lot of mountain feats from the Pokedex.

The issue is that most are explicitly over time, via rampaging.

Though, the earthquake feat may be calcable, its where the 'great mountains crumble part comes from'. It's caused just from walking, so it might have to be divided by a bit though I wouldn't have an issue there.

 

[GyroNutz]

Tyranitar can 'crush' a mountain/make mountains crumble with just one hand. The walking feat is probably more impressive though, since it's even more casual.

The "+" standards are changing to be a bit more lenient, but I suppose that depends on the results of Tyranitar's feat.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Creating mountain crumbling earthquakes is like, Low 6-B though.

 

[SomebodyData]

Well that's a nice upgrade then, of course it'd have to be calced then, but the more accurate the stats, the better.

 

[Dragopentling]

Consider what happened with the FSN 6C upgrade due to revisited calcs, I don't see why we don't need a significant re-upgrade with this verse. Just my personal take, not trying to argue a point, btw.

 

[Arceus0x]

i'd also like to ask about sth

we still have cooperajah's gigantamax entry saying

"So much power is packed within its trunk that if it were to unleash that power, the resulting blast could level mountains and change the landscape."

could that be of any help? cause im pretty sure this should be a 6-C feat. it's your decision tho

 

[SuperKamiNappa]

Destroying mountains isn't any more than Low7-B and changing landscapes sound vague enough that they could already do that at High 7-A

 

[Arceus0x]

Destroying mountains isn't any more than Low7-B and changing landscapes sound vague enough that they could already do that at High 7-A

true dat. Though i wonder if the japanese pokedex entry for that has anything different to say.

 

[Dragopentling]

Destroying mountains isn't any more than Low7-B and changing landscapes sound vague enough that they could already do that at High 7-A

Isn't any more than Low 7-B? Wut? Is this about the whole "destruction feat" calcs vs KE or something along those lines? There's countless Tier 7 profiles that may have be doublechecked cause of such...maybe even 6C profiles, too.

I'm very confused now.

 

[SuperKamiNappa]

There's a calc out there that showed that https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Mountain_and_Island_level_requirements I think this only used for statements without a cal cable feat

 

[Dragopentling]

uhhhhh, idk about the consistences, tbh. I'd bring up an example right now where the calcs seem too generous given the objects involved, but I'd be assumed for being "off-topic" cause it doesn't involve the Pokemon verse.

 

[GyroNutz]

I made a recalc of Pupitar's feat.

 

[Dragopentling]

I made a recalc of Pupitar's feat.

Oooooo nice, ill check that out a bit later.

 

[Overlord775]

I made a recalc of Pupitar's feat.

Now it's more consistent with other 2nd stage pokemons

 

[Dragopentling]

Still wish it's BL Mountain Level, but yea it helps with 2nd stage mons. I do still feel like Final Stage mons should be 6C, but I guess we need to legit see an island getting destroyed for that

 

[The_Calaca]

So the next best feat for 3rd Stage PKMN is 326MT now? If the calc is accepted, ofc.

 

[Drite77]

It is the Charizard melting rocks calc, i think

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Did Kep agree to the downgrade? He's the one behind the original Pupitar calc after all.

And yeah it's still Zard.

 

[The_Calaca]

Nothing has been concluded here. The calc has been accepted by one CGM.

 

[SomebodyData]

Charizard has another feat than the PMD one? Or are we talking about the PMD one, which was preformed by a trained Charizard?

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The PMD one, yes.

 

[SomebodyData]

Well like the OP said, that would fall against the species profile guidelines if its by a member that's not a regular member of the species.

Of course, he also said it was fine if the Pupitar feat was in the same ballpark, but with the recalc it doesn't seem that way.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I mean, self-trainer or not it's still wild, and shows that wild Pokémon can indeed be self trained to be that strong, as shown by the other members of ACT.