• 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.

Pokémon Trainer revisions (RPG Edition)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't Red and Blue scale to 2-B/2-A anyhow? Elio fought, Cyrus, who has a Palkia, and both of them can fight Elio without any of the Battle Tree Equalization Shenanigans
 
Do we currently even have Rainbow Rocket keys?

Also, if events are good to be used, then 2-B/2-A Red and Blue should work (and obviously Ethan)
 
So the Rainbow Rocket leaders all get 2-B, likely 2-A via scaling to USUM Elio, who scales to Cyrus and his Dialga/Palkia.
 
Wouldn't Red and Blue scale to 2-B/2-A anyhow? Elio fought, Cyrus, who has a Palkia, and both of them can fight Elio without any of the Battle Tree Equalization Shenanigans
Nothing in the dialogue implies that Blue and Red scale to Elio

So the Rainbow Rocket leaders all get 2-B, likely 2-A via scaling to USUM Elio, who scales to Cyrus and his Dialga/Palkia.
No, they lost to Elio, why would they all scale to him? Giovanni stated that it would be foolish to fight Elio, so even Giovanni wouldn't scale to him. Colress said that Elio beating the leaders must have been easy
 
The two literally fought Elio. Unless you can prove it was a stomp, they would scale.
Since when did we scale characters to people they fought without evidence that their attacks actually scaled to them? There's no evidence Red and Blue did good against Elio
 
If we go by purely game mechanics, then you can train everyone to Level 100 before the first mandatory fight and sweep the game. That doesn't mean that the player immediately after they begin is >>> the champion despite being able to train all his mons to level 100 and sweep him
 
I think we can ignore Gilad. Dude says random stuff, gets refuted, then ignores it and comes back later with irrelevant stuff
 
I think we can ignore Gilad. Dude says random stuff, gets refuted, then ignores it and comes back later with irrelevant stuff
Dude why are you constantly being so rude??? This isn't even the first time I say this to you specifically. Continue with this and I'll report you

Also way to go not even answering my argument and instead replying with this. Wow. Such a good answer
 
Prove it.
You have to prove they did good. Simply fighting someone doesn't mean you did good against them. Do you think fighting someone and losing means you scale to them now?

Dude why are you constantly being so rude??? This isn't even the first time I say this to you specifically. Continue with this and I'll report you

Also way to go not even answering my argument and instead replying with this. Wow. Such a good answer
How is this report worthy, I'm just telling people to ignore you
 
You have to prove they did good. Simply fighting someone doesn't mean you did good against them. Do you think fighting someone and losing means you scale to them now?
If we were following this logic, it would be impossible to scale 90% of trainers as the Protag's beat most of them, and the Protag's would all be the only real higher Tiers with a few exceptions. There's basically no other way to figure out how characters scale. We cannot say either way if the battle was difficult or easy for the trainer, so the safest bet is to say that they proved a fair challenge.

How is this report worthy, I'm just telling people to ignore you
Alright guys let's all ignore King (The Other King, not me lol) and his usual nonsense ramblings and constant questioning of things we explain over and over to him again, would definitely be much more effective to not waste time on him. You see how someone would feel offended by other's talking bout Ignoring them now?
 
You have to prove they did good. Simply fighting someone doesn't mean you did good against them. Do you think fighting someone and losing means you scale to them now?
It’s not my responsibility to disprove your claim you have provided no evidence for, that being Elio stomping Red/Blue. The default assumption is that if character A can fight character B, then A scales to B. If you can’t provide evidence of a stomp, then we’re done here.
 
Last edited:
If we were following this logic, it would be impossible to scale 90% of trainers as the Protag's beat most of them, and the Protag's would all be the only real higher Tiers with a few exceptions. There's basically no other way to figure out how characters scale. We cannot say either way if the battle was difficult or easy for the trainer, so the safest bet is to say that they proved a fair challenge.
If its impossible to scale 90% of trainers then put them as unknown

It’s not my responsibility to disprove your claim you have provided no evidence for, that being Elio stomping Red/Blue. The default assumption is that if character A can fight character B, then A scales to B. If you can’t provide evidence of that, then we’re done here.
You made the claim that Red and Blue put up a good fight, so you have to prove it. We don't know how they did, so its just unknown
 
If its impossible to scale 90% of trainers then put them as unknown
Ah yes, change numerous profiles to Unknown just because there is a slight chance that they were stomped by the Player even though there is as much of a chance they were a fair challenge to or a even a wall to the player. King, with all due respect, this is a immensely flawed argument that solves absolutely nothing. All we know about the fight's was that they occurred. To say it was a stomp would be like, for a example you would understand, assuming that in the Keyblade War, Aced stomped Invi. It makes no sense and is based off nothing tangible.
 
One could use the dialogue of after their battles and during them implying that the battle wasn’t one sided as well as supporting evidence
 
Ah yes, change numerous profiles to Unknown just because there is a slight chance that they were stomped by the Player even though there is as much of a chance they were a fair challenge to or a even a wall to the player. King, with all due respect, this is a immensely flawed argument that solves absolutely nothing. All we know about the fight's was that they occurred. To say it was a stomp would be like, for a example you would understand, assuming that in the Keyblade War, Aced stomped Invi. It makes no sense and is based off nothing tangible.
Why is there much of a chance they were a fair challenge? What is a keyblade war and who is "aced"? You might think assuming they got stomped is based off of nothing tangible, but assuming they did well is also based off of nothing tangible
 
Why is there much of a chance they were a fair challenge? What is a keyblade war and who is "aced"? You might think assuming they got stomped is based off of nothing tangible, but assuming they did well is also based off of nothing tangible
... Let me get this straight- You've been on Kingdom Hearts threads, but you don't even know the lore? So much for that example... There is a Equal chance that it was a stomp, or that it was equal or that the protag even had the disadvantage- We don't know enough about the fights to say either way is the point, but as stated before by other's, typically in these situations it is assumed that each fight was, well, a fight rather than a stomp, that they could compete to a degree, as that's the safest option that doesn't lean too hard in any direction without evidence.

In any case, you can disregard the example- The point is that when we don't see a fight, we can't simply automatically assume the winning party just stomped.
 
typically in these situations it is assumed that each fight was, well, a fight rather than a stomp, that they could compete to a degree, as that's the safest option that doesn't lean too hard in any direction without evidence.

In any case, you can disregard the example- The point is that when we don't see a fight, we can't simply automatically assume the winning party just stomped.
Why do we typically assume that the fight wasn't a stomp? Why is it the safest assumption? You would have to assume that Red and Blue have Pokemon that damaged Elio's, that's also an assumption without evidence
 
It's safest because it doesn't provide a radical tip one way or the other. If we assumed that it's a stomp, then it's always gonna be biased towards the winner period. If we assume it was always a struggle to barely scrap by against a superior for, then it will be slightly biased towards the Loser. You're talking in circles here. Slapping Unknown on a bunch of profiles is a non-answer, and I doubt we'd ever let that go through when it's more reasonable to say that they fight on comparable ground.
 
If its impossible to scale 90% of trainers then put them as unknown


You made the claim that Red and Blue put up a good fight, so you have to prove it. We don't know how they did, so its just unknown
Why do we typically assume that the fight wasn't a stomp? Why is it the safest assumption? You would have to assume that Red and Blue have Pokemon that damaged Elio's, that's also an assumption without evidence

To quote the Fallacies page:

3. Burden of proof fallacy

This is when someone attempts to make someone else prove a claim when the burden of proof is really on them to prove it. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and the person who makes the claim.

Example:

"Goku is faster than light speed because you can't prove he's not!"

In this case, the person in the example makes a claim (Goku is FTL), and without providing evidence for it himself, he asks his opponent to prove him wrong. In reality, the person who made that claim would be the one required to prove it.
Basically, the positive claim here is that Elio and Red/Blue put up a good fight, and you are attempting to have everyone else give you proof that he was actually stomped.

So, no, the burden of proof is one YOU to explain how two high-level trainers didn't have a good bout and it was factually a stomp by Elio. If you cannot provide such proof, then your argument holds no water, and I expect you to shut your trap about the issue.
 
I think we can ignore Gilad. Dude says random stuff, gets refuted, then ignores it and comes back later with irrelevant stuff
You didn't refute anything, you're frankly just being a nuisance at the moment since everyone's coming to a consensus beyond the ridiculous, weightless things you're proposing. I believe you got banned for such hostility before so you really should tone it down
 
To quote the Fallacies page:


Basically, the positive claim here is that Elio and Red/Blue put up a good fight, and you are attempting to have everyone else give you proof that he was actually stomped.

So, no, the burden of proof is one YOU to explain how two high-level trainers didn't have a good bout and it was factually a stomp by Elio. If you cannot provide such proof, then your argument holds no water, and I expect you to shut your trap about the issue.
Why is Red and Blue putting up a good fight the negative claim?

By that logic, scaling for all RPGs as a whole is just thrown out the window.

Yeah no, you're being very ridiculous.
I don't get how saying we don't know how a fight went is ridiculous

It's safest because it doesn't provide a radical tip one way or the other. If we assumed that it's a stomp, then it's always gonna be biased towards the winner period. If we assume it was always a struggle to barely scrap by against a superior for, then it will be slightly biased towards the Loser. You're talking in circles here. Slapping Unknown on a bunch of profiles is a non-answer, and I doubt we'd ever let that go through when it's more reasonable to say that they fight on comparable ground.
You know that assuming Red and Blue even damaged a top tier trainer's Pokemon which can easily beat Giovanni would be a "radical tip" right?
 
The dialogue doesn't imply either of them did well, it also doesn't imply anything about the difficulty. So to assume they either got stomped or put up a good fight would be like equal assumptions. At best that would be a "possibly"
 
You know that assuming Red and Blue even damaged a top tier trainer's Pokemon which can easily beat Giovanni would be a "radical tip" right?
... You realize Red and Blue have both beaten Giovanni before, yes? He's the 8th Gym Leader after all- And Red Scales to Mew-Two following the Kanto Story, so citing Giovanni being beaten by Elio isn't exactly much of a effective point.
 
The dialogue doesn't imply either of them did well, it also doesn't imply anything about the difficulty. So to assume they either got stomped or put up a good fight would be like equal assumptions. At best that would be a "possibly"
Then if the dialogue doesn't indicate anything, why are you asserting your view as true? In that case we should probably go by the standards on how RPG fight are treated here
 
... You realize Red and Blue have both beaten Giovanni before, yes? He's the 8th Gym Leader after all- And Red Scales to Mew-Two following the Kanto Story, so citing Giovanni being beaten by Elio isn't exactly much of a effective point.
That Giovanni isn't the same one Red defeated. He came from a universe where he won and captured Mewtwo and even Mega Evolved it, so Red beating the other Giovanni doesn't discerting Sun/Elio (or Selene) beating Team Rainbow Rocket's Giovanni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top