Tradebacks

[-Manaphy--]

Tradebacks.


I think it'd be interesting to make a thread on Tradebacks, since from the looks of it make a different metagame from the Normal RBY.


It'd also be interesting to see if it'd be worth it's own tier. (But splitting the RBY players wouldn't be so delightful)

[Pizza]

I assumed tradebacks were just already added into the RBY metagame as it was? If there wasn't a split before, would there really need to be one now?

[-Manaphy--]

I assumed tradebacks were just already added into the RBY metagame as it was? If there wasn't a split before, would there really need to be one now?

No, the main metagame ignored Tradebacks completely, or what they called "Pure RBY"

However, due to the situation as described earlier with the presence of an established RBY metagame, most battlers (and thus, the competitive community overall / as a whole) chose not to standardize these new tradeback moves into common play. So, as it exists today, competitive RBY battlers generally prefer not to play with tradebacks ("Pure RBY").

In any case, tradebacks and the tradeback metagame remain an interesting and notable aspect of competitive Pokemon, especially since there are those who enjoy playing RBY with tradebacks (and do so) to this day.

So it appeared to be more of a novelty tier, possible to play but not so common.

[borat]

Of course the "main metagame" ignored tradebacks. The "main metagame" was in a period before tradebacks even existed, before the mechanics were even spot on, before DSL/Cable became mainstream. When GSC came out, people either remained playing RBY (thus, still playing "true RBY"), or people swamped to GSC.

And with GSC, RBY had already existed and people were already trading across gens on their Gameboys even before a "online metagame" stabilized, therefore tradebacks were a natural feature in the game.

No one really plays "true GSC" either. Because both are deviations from "natural" progression.

[Destiny Warrior]

borat summed it up basically. Tradebacks should be implemented in the simulator in my opinion, but they shouldn't necessarily be part of the standard ladder(but then again, we're breaking tradition by implementing stad mechanics, so it would be a bit less of a stretch to add tbs to the official meta).

[CALLOUS]

Tradebacks are part of the metagame whether people like it or not and should absolutely be implemented.

[Blitzamirin]

I play Standard RBY, where no tradebacks exist. I have always hated tradebacks, such as Zam with the punches and Raichu with Surf to kill Rhydon/Golem.

But, I can't stop it. When RBY Cartridge is released, then I can play my own way.

[Meteor64]

Tradebacks are part of the metagame whether people like it or not and should absolutely be implemented.

Indeed. It's like saying Adv 200 is the only true metagame of 3rd gen- which is quite simply a load of tosh. If it can legitimately appear in RBY I see no reason not to implement it (with the exception of Missingno. of course)

[Isa-]

Of course the "main metagame" ignored tradebacks. The "main metagame" was in a period before tradebacks even existed, before the mechanics were even spot on, before DSL/Cable became mainstream. When GSC came out, people either remained playing RBY (thus, still playing "true RBY"), or people swamped to GSC.

And with GSC, RBY had already existed and people were already trading across gens on their Gameboys even before a "online metagame" stabilized, therefore tradebacks were a natural feature in the game.

No one really plays "true GSC" either. Because both are deviations from "natural" progression.

This is why. Tradebacks can be used, but it's a separate metagame, and it's not as popular. It can be implemented if you want, but don't expect to play as many "old-school" (referring to everyone who plays on NetBattle Supremacy) players with it.

[Weavilewinz]

Seriously so many really old threads gettin' bumped recently. I mean this forum's pretty dead but still.
I' implement trade backs.

[Isa-]

Two-fold question:

Is this going to happen, and if so, when?

[Xinc]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include it separately, like dream world tiers?

[Xdevo]

RBY/Stadium don't have near the playerbase to hold a tradeback tier.

[Xinc]

RBY/Stadium don't have near the playerbase to hold a tradeback tier.

Not YET, you mean. Just give it some time xdevo.

[Isa-]

Ignoring Xdevo because he thinks that all tiers that aren't RBY OU should be removed;

Yes, that's what I want as well. To be honest, I'd rather they didn't implement tradebacks at all than if they were to force it into the same tier.

Also curious in general if the mods read these parts of the forum; Lutra's request for a ban on Evasion moves have gone unnoticed. Is there even someone working on cartridge RBY at this point in time?

[Xdevo]

Not YET, you mean. Just give it some time xdevo.

Please name the last time you've seen a new tier made in a past generation ever grow in usage or hell even get usage at all.
Adding YET ANOTHER tier to an already crowded and dead generation isn't going to do anything.

[Isa-]

As said - RBY2K10 is waiting for the cartridge mechanics, as is the RBY Smogon players.

[Xinc]

As said - RBY2K10 is waiting for the cartridge mechanics, as is the RBY Smogon players.

Please refrain from ninja'ing me. :P

[Xdevo]

As said - RBY2K10 is waiting for the cartridge mechanics, as is the RBY Smogon players.

Those people who are only waiting for normal RBY mechanics aren't going to play a tier based off of tradebacks, just like they didn't/aren't playing Stadium.

[Jørgen]

Why, exactly, shouldn't tradebacks be implemented? I mean, what's honestly the harm? It's not like Tradebacks is some random metagame concocted by four highschoolers who are its exclusive players; it's actually something of an "official" tier, and is probably similarly if not more worthwhile to implement than the existing Stadium mechanics.

[pokemon0078]

I generally say if it is possible in the game, it should be possible in a simulator.