Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Why I Think Self-KO Clause is Not Needed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 15 2009, 07:09 AM (280 Views) | |
| Lutra | Aug 15 2009, 07:09 AM Post #1 |
|
In this post, I will counter some of the various arguments for the use of Self-KO Clause. Argument: It decreases the chances of a match ending in a tie. Counter: What is so wrong with a tie? It just shows both players matched each other - equivalent to a double win/loss. What is the point of giving an exploder/destiny bonder a disadvantage just to allow the game not to end in a tie? They are legal throughout the rest of the game, why not at the end? Argument: An explosion with 1 pokemon each at the end is much harder to avoid. Counter: So are a lot of other moves. You could actually end up with a steel that resists explosion at the end. Just as easily, you could have the misfortune for a swampert to be paired with a leaf storm user at the end. Argument: It encourages the use of exploding strategy teams. Counter: Exploders could just as easily interchange between attacking and exploding until it's 1-1 and then beat you with another move. |
![]() |
|
| CATERPIE | Aug 15 2009, 10:46 AM Post #2 |
|
Almost as good as Goddish
|
In the games whoever explodes loses as far as I know so yeah lets not go ending things in ties shall we? |
![]() |
|
| Broth3r | Aug 15 2009, 10:59 AM Post #3 |
![]()
In for the funny shit.
|
Read the clause name: Self-KO clause. It refers to someone KO'ing THEIR OWN LAST POKE for the purpose of a tie. You have to remeber any pokemon has four moves, not only explosion. Meaning they can and should use their other moves to nail the win, even if by a lucky NVE crit. By exploding on the last pokemon, you are not just sacrificing one pokemon for a KO and an eventual win (like when you explode in the middle of the match), you are voiding every and any chance of winning the match, small as it may be. The purpose of any match is to win. I am not against ties, I know they are as legitimate as a win or a defeat, but they should, in any match of any sport or game, happen, not provoked. |
![]() |
|
| Lutra | Aug 15 2009, 11:26 AM Post #4 |
|
I don't quite understand why you think that exploding/destiny bonding last turn is provoking. The other player will obviously try to win. But if they can't, they will settle for a draw. Your logical argument is non-existent. As far as it happening in-game, I guess it should be there if that is the case in-game. But I certainly don't think it should be the standard. It's pretty ridiculous for a player to demand it being on. |
![]() |
|
| Broth3r | Aug 15 2009, 11:40 AM Post #5 |
![]()
In for the funny shit.
|
The percentage of pokes possessing explosion/dbond/selfdestruct as their only damaging attack is marginal. My point is, if there is a chance of winning a match, even if it relies on a critical hit (or more) or a side effect burn, it shouldnt be the only choice, not "settling" for a draw. |
![]() |
|
| Jaxi | Aug 15 2009, 12:40 PM Post #6 |
|
Self-KO clause is good for tournaments. Otherwise I don't care if it's on or off. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 15 2009, 01:55 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
Lutra... if you dont like it dont use it :/ thats simple... If you use an Explosion Team (or Boom Team w/e) then just dont accept challenges with Self KO Clause or dont challenge with it |
|
|
| DJ Fury | Aug 15 2009, 03:17 PM Post #8 |
|
If you don't lilke Self-KO Clause, don't play with it in. |
![]() |
|
| Kioku | Aug 16 2009, 06:00 PM Post #9 |
|
Cooler than you
|
Yeah, this is stupid. You can check it off or not check it off. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · NetBattle Supremacy Talk · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Zeta Original | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
12:37 AM Jul 11
|







12:37 AM Jul 11