• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Issue with Pokemon profiles (more specifically Aegislash)

ArbitraryNumbers

ArbitraryNumbers

VS Battles
Retired
4,652
1,328
Aegislash's profile uses "via powerscaling" as the only justification for all of its AP and dura rankings, except for the High 6-C ranking.

The issue with this is that not too long ago we already had a rule made about this. And Pokemon profiles were the main example I used when suggesting the rule being made.

Also, are we absolutely certain that High 6-C scales to EVERY fully evolved Pokemon? It shouldn't take too much of a leap of faith to say that Garchomp or Dragonite should be far superior to, say, Butterfree or Beedrill. I didn't follow the upgrade thread very well, so if an explanation is available that would be great.
 
I'll wai ton the later stuff but for the former. agreeing completely.

We need to edit out the "via powerscaling" to something else. At least to pokemon who they powerscale to/off.
 
While I agree with adding more reasoning (Our Pokémon profiles nearly all seem to have reasoning problems to some degree), fully evolved Pokémon that are actually worth anything definitively shouldn't be 10 times weaker than something like Charizard.
 
Going to bring this up here just so a whole other thread isnt really needed.

Regarding Hoopa (him individually, not summoning other mon), is there a specific reason why Hoopa by himself can't or doesnt scale to neither Volcanion or Diancie? Not saying at all he should be superior, just curious about this given its strange he isn't just downscaled from them instead of being upscaled from vastly weaker mon like Tyranitar.
 
Because roaming regular Pokemon is very different from Mythic Pokemon.

(Also TFW I instinctually typed "Digimon" at first)
 
He's just scaled to the Birds as usual, it's just that someone forgot to update the reasoning properly.

I see no reasons to scale Hoopa to Diancie or Volcanion though.
 
IIRC, we have scaled legends/mythicals to or off other legendaries before when they had nothing else to go by. Like Solgaleo and Lunala before they were upgraded. Even currently now like Shaymin being tier 6 for being "comparable with legendaries" or others where they are for comparing to a random specific legendary.

Im fine with Hoopa not scaling, but just wondered if what happens to the former should happen to the latter too. Especially since Hoopa, Volcanion and Diancie are the 3 kalos mythicals.
 
Simply being a Mythical from a specific generation does not grant scaling. Especially since they're very often unrelated.

This has never been as true as with Alola. Marshadow, the new electric type one and Magearna are utterly unrelated to each other. Like, Marshadow doesn't even show up in the original Anime timeline.

Same here.Hoopa has no relations whatsoever to Volcanion and Diancie.
 
No. We just scale everyone to the Birds due to them being shitty and pretty baseline Legendaries in the grand scheme of things.
 
Fully evolved Pokemon that we can scale the High 6-C result to? I don't keep up quite perfectly, but.... Does Dugtrio count? Didn't Charizard have some high feats? Tyranitar?

What are some of the other fully evolved Pokemon with feats in that range that we can put as the reasoning for scaling?
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
fully evolved Pokémon that are actually worth anything definitively shouldn't be 10 times weaker than something like Charizard.
Click to expand...


"Worth anything" is subjective. It's a baseless assumption; we can't judge by stats, and most normal Pokemon have no lore behind them at all to connect them to other Pokemon, so what do you judge a Pokemon's strength by aside from just arbitrarily assuming that they scale?

My problem with all of this powerscaling is that it's just blindly assuming that Pokemon scale just because they're in the same stage of their evolution lines. The only ones where it kind of works are the mega evolutions. Other than that it's just a big web of guesswork and assumptions.

There's nothing suggesting that Swellow is on par with Charizard other than an assumption that boils down to "they scale because I say so".
 
The problem is that all of those fully adult Pokémon very often coexist in the same environment. While the way we do isn't ideal, it's infinitely better than our old ways of having a Pokémon be thousands of times stronger than literally everything else based simply on the fact that assuming otherwise is just "guess work". It makes little to no sense to have, say, a 7-C Pokémon existing in an environment full of 9-B and not having stomped all of them into submission yet.
 
@Saikou

Rabbits and birds can live in the same forest as a bear. Obviously neither of these animals have any chance of harming the bear at all, but that doesn't mean they can't exist in the same environment, even if the threat of death is still there.

Naturally the same logic applies here. Zubat and Onix live in the same cave. Doesn't mean that they necessarily have to fight on par with each other to survive, or that they should scale.

However I agree this reasoning is definitely better than what we used to have, as quantifying this verse has proven to be quite difficult. At the very least it has something to go off of.

Would adding "Likely" to the rankings be a good compromise? Due to it not being absolutely certain?
 
Like I said when we first came up with this point of scaling, this isnt a perfect system, but it's a better one than our old one that we can work on over time.
 
I definitely agree there.

These are just my contributions. My opinion is that a "likely" prefix would work better than just acting like it's straight up certain.
 
Well some Pokemon who only evolve once are kinda considered pretty powerful. Zoroark, Lucario and Lycanroc are some examples.
 
I also disagree with Pidgey's "tornado like winds" being 8-A.

"Tornado-like" could just be referring to the fact that Gust is a mini-tornado. It's a leap of faith to assume that "tornado-like winds" in this instance is equivalent to a real life tornado that can tear towns apart. I can't think of any other verse that we'd be this lenient with.

Perhaps BoG fodder, like the Rattatas, Caterpies, and Pidgeys of each generation, should all be ranked as "At least 9-B" via being superior to Magikarp?
 
It seems that you both don't understand that their rating is based on them after being trained, obliviously Pidgey is 9-B at start of game and Charizard is not High 6-C+ quickly after it evolved. I don't think we should giving them a key for the ones found in the wild after they quickly evolved. The 8-A+ is not for Pidgey gust, it's from Anime Pikachu performing a 8-A+ feat in the second episode and likely Rhyhor violent fragmentation of a Skyscraper. In the Anime Pokémon of second and third stage constantly fight with each other.
 
I disagree pretty heavily. The likes of Charizard being 10,000s of times stronger than the mons it constantly has to fight sounds ridiculous.
 
Dark649 said:
It seems that you both don't understand that their rating is based on them after being trained, obliviously Pidgey is 9-B at start of game and Charizard is not High 6-C+ quickly after it evolved. I don't think we should giving them a key for the ones found in the wild. The 8-A+ is not for Pidgey gust, it's from Anime Pikachu performing a 8-A+ feat in the second episode.
Click to expand...

Ii know how the Pokemon are scaled. I'm one of the main people who pushed this.
 
Where's the logic in assuming that BoG fodder scales to the most prominent Pokemon in the series just because they're trained?

Also I don't think Rhyhorn's feat is as impressive as we're making it out to be. All you gotta do to take down a large building is destroy a majority of the lower sections and everything above it will fall down and shatter.

However it could be an impressive durability feat. If rhyhorn can charge into a building and destroy the lower sections, then he should be capable of surviving the entire thing collapsing on him. I doubt Rhyhorn could escape in time, so of course it's most likely going to collapse on him.
 
If you really want to i can give a BoG Key to Rattata or Pidgey of each gen. as at least 9-B by being stronger than Baby Pokémon or Caterpie, but that's it. Rhyhorn dura is impressive yes, which scales since he/she can be harmed by other Rhyhorns, laslty the likely is not needed.
 
I never once said add a BoG key for Pidgey or Rattata. I'm saying Downgrade them. There's no reason trained fodder should scale to a trained Pikachu.
 
I'm not sure you can call a level 5 Pikachu who was freshly caught a "trainer" Pikachu. And besides, we have wild Pikachus coexisting with said """fodder""".
 
@Dragon

But a trained Pikachu is not. These profiles are for trained Pokemon.

Pikachu is one of the most prominent Pokemon in the whole franchise. It's the mascot. Pidgey is a bird fodder that can be encountered literally anywhere in the region. It's treated like a "hooray you found another one" Pokemon.

Because the franchise has hyped it so much, Pikachu has tons of super moves and gimmicks that Pidgey does not. There's literally no comparing the two.

@Saikou

I've already explained above why I don't buy the "coexisting" argument.

I never once referred to a freshly caught Pikachu, either. I call Pidgey fodder because that's what it is. They're practically the goombas of the franchise.

However I'm just now processing the fact that trained pokemon aren't fodder. I'll concede there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CloverDragon03
Gotta Revise 'Em All, Part 2 (Clover Edition): Mainline Game Scaling
2 3
Replies
98
Views
4K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
King_Clab
Pokemon Revision- Cynthia to 6-C
Replies
5
Views
1K
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
DarkKingD10
Attempt #2 (hopefully more success lol)
Replies
2
Views
1K
DarkKingD10
DarkKingD10
Ayewale
  • Locked
Gotta Revise 'Em All, Part 1: Splitting the Pokemon Canons (Massive Pokemon CRT)
22 23 24
Replies
946
Views
45K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Iamunanimousinthat
  • Locked
Pokemon - Arceus and his Plate abilities?
20 21 22
Replies
842
Views
37K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top