You may be slightly disappointed. Only slightly though :PTapu Bulu
1. Exploudit
2. Ticktock
3. Ezaphs
Tapu Fini
1. Exploudit
2. Ticktock
3. Heavyweapons Mann
Tapu Koko
1. Exploudit
2. SixTrails
3. Heavyweapons Mann
Tapu Lele
1. Exploudit
2. Heavyweapons Mann
3. Ezaphs
As for the next slate, I'd prefer non Gen VI/VII Pokemon, thanks.
I'd Styl ve on the lookout for the next slate if I were you ;)You may be slightly disappointed. Only slightly though :P
That was the worst "hint" I've ever seen. You could've at least made an anagram or somethingI'd Styl ve on the lookout for the next slate if I were you ;)
Anagrams? They're vary poring if I'm entirely honest.That was the worst "hint" I've ever seen. You could've at least made an anagram or something
This comment is unnecessary, in my opinion. You can say which submissions you like the best without putting everyone else's down.The rest either make little sense or are stupidly broken imo.
Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that not seeing a link design-wise between the original and the new features, or thinking that a Pokemon would be too strong competitively to be usable in the majority of tiers, was offensive. I guess my feels aren't up to date, or maybe you misinterpreted the sentence's intention.This comment is unnecessary, in my opinion. You can say which submissions you like the best without putting everyone else's down.
Yes, it is possible that I misinterpreted your post. Personally, I didn't think it was necessary because all that's asked of this thread is to submit your ideas and then vote. That's not to say there's anything wrong with insightful criticism, but to tell everyone else that their submissions make no sense or are "stupidly broken" without any actual reasoning is, in my opinion, not necessary. But again, maybe I misinterpreted your post. Maybe I took what you said the wrong way. If that is the case, then I apologize for any misunderstanding.Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that not seeing a link design-wise between the original and the new features, or thinking that a Pokemon would be too strong competitively to be usable in the majority of tiers, was offensive. I guess my feels aren't up to date, or maybe you misinterpreted the sentence's intention.
As someone who frequents this thread, I can tell you that it is intended for more than just that. Discussion is also permitted. I wanted to share my opinion as such, as well as my vote, without spamming multiple posts.Personally, I didn't think it was necessary because all that's asked of this thread is to submit your ideas and then vote.
I don't recall saying that they made no sense. Of course they make some sense, why else would they make their submissions? However, in terms of actual megas, they don't really fit thematically as the actual ingame ones do. Hence why I said "little sense". I called them stupidly broken because they were. Its not offensive to call a Pokemon broken.to tell everyone else that their submissions make no sense or are "stupidly broken" without any actual reasoning is, in my opinion, not necessary.
Seems like it, hence why I suggested that maybe you misinterpreted.But again, maybe I misinterpreted your post. Maybe I took what you said the wrong way.
I never said discussion wasn't permitted. I even said that there's nothing wrong with insightful criticism, you just chose to omit that when quoting my post. You can offer insightful criticism beyond "that makes little sense" without "spamming multiple posts".As someone who frequents this thread, I can tell you that it is intended for more than just that. Discussion is also permitted. I wanted to share my opinion as such, as well as my vote, without spamming multiple posts.
I don't recall saying that they made no sense. Of course they make some sense, why else would they make their submissions? However, in terms of actual megas, they don't really fit thematically as the actual ingame ones do. Hence why I said "little sense". I called them stupidly broken because they were. Its not offensive to call a Pokemon broken.
I already acknowledged you saying that in my post. If you'd rather avoid my apology for any potential misunderstandings and just be unpleasant instead, then this is a conversation I'd rather not participate in.Seems like it, hence why I suggested that maybe you misinterpreted.
The "there's nothing wrong with insightful criticism" statement is generally used as a patronising thing, suggesting "but yours isn't constructive", so I won't even touch that.I never said discussion wasn't permitted. I even said that there's nothing wrong with insightful criticism, you just chose to omit that when quoting my post.
Little means it does make some sense. Pretty significant difference.Yes, you did say "little sense" instead of "no sense". That is my mistake. I don't really see much of a difference, though.
Wait, did you say that I was being unpleasant?I already acknowledged you saying that in my post. If you'd rather avoid my apology for any potential misunderstandings and just be unpleasant instead, then this is a conversation I'd rather not participate in.
That wasn't unpleasant. That was a statement saying that maybe the reason I said that you misunderstood me, actually was because you misunderstood me. Get your emotions together, not everything's an attack.just be unpleasant instead
honestly, your ones seemed like some of the better ones. They were fairly balanced statwise, and had fitting abilities (although I'm not sure Prankster fit Lele's usage style). I just felt that the other two I voted for had a tad more consistency in how they were laid out. If you couldn't vote for yourself, you'd most likely be my 3rd.I may have grasped at straws with my submissions.