laggless01

It is in beta testing, we're busy (well, the dev team is, we just do glorified walking into pitfalls) finding/fixing errors so you won't experience them. It's a bit difficult to give some idea of progress, since you only know about errors by causing them. Therefore, it is hard to get a decent idea of when it will be serviceable for public release.

For your interest, my plan for Aya was to set up mist, then EQ the everloving poison out of her (Piloswine is Ground/Ice). Not sure if that will go according to plan, though. I'll give the fellow an Amplifield rock, just for hopes. Thick Fat actually makes Fire-attacks easier to take, although it isn't ideal. (Still bet Cal easily on the first try, it ate a Close Combat. Damn.) And no, I'm not going to use Pelipper. It was bad enough already that I needed Wingull to breed good IVs on Crobat. Seismitoad is perhaps interesting (I could use a special attacker), although it isn't very strong. Funny enough, I was deciding between Amoonguss and Crobat for a poison-type, but I desperately needed a decent Flying mon. (Plus no BB on Murkrow) Roserade is just...a lot of hassle (Breed Nuzelaf with just the right IVs, possibly train until Extrasensory, then keep breeding with the best mons, but evolution required fo bredding...did that once before, but now I can't use a bugged version of the game.) Crobat getting swapped for Archeops would solve some coverage issues I now have, but that'll have to wait. Taunt was only useful against Shelly (which was quite hard to beat, only had Trubbish left), I just kept it just in case, without any plans. So it isn't crucial (as far as I know...but maybe preventing those Spikes on the Wasteland could give me an edge). I didn't know Dig isn't affected by the Wasteland, so that might be fun to abuse (if it goes fast enough). I'll consider the bunny. With all those things, I still need more team balance, so good additional members are welcomed. (Also for the long run, I could really use suggestions on T3RR4, that fight really didn't go well for me. Neither that goddamn Mewtwo.)

Since my old save file(s) didn't transfer to my new computer, I had to restart for E16. So far, things are going...ok . My mystery egg was a Shroomish, but with a Fighting-starter that went nowhere, and instead of Pachirisu I was given the chance for a wingull. Which I rather Freeze-dried, then land a Focus Punch upon. Now, after I sang Solaris to death (figuratively), I now need a member to soak up exp and complement my remaining team. These are the current ones: Blaziken (lvl 45), Speed Boost (yeah, yeah.) Adamant -Double Kick -Bulk Up -Flame Charge -Blaze Kick Zel's Glaceon constantly using Mirror Coat while setting up was the weirdest thing I saw an AI do in this run. Obviously a decent powerhouse. Piloswine (lvl 45), Thick Fat Jolly -EQ -Icicle Crash -Ice Shard -Mist I'm so glad this one and Cubchoo are available so early, even though the final evo of the former comes after the next gym. Zoroark (lvl 45), Illusion Timid -Foul Play -Extrasensory -Pursuit -Night Slash Yeah, Dark Pulse would've been a better egg move. Psyched out a lot of opponents with Extrasensory, tho, even Kiki. Crobat (lvl 45), Inner Focus Jolly -Acrobatics -Poison Fang -Bite -Confuse Ray Recent addition, needed something to fight alongside the quaker, and phasing out Garbodor. Not the greatest offensive movepool, however. Bite could find a replacement. Plus I gave up an Adamant Murkrow with good IVs and Brave Bird for one with Perish Song. Will probably get replaced by Archeops in Spinel. Meowstic(F) (lvl 46), Keen Eye Lax -Psyshock -Psychic -Signal Beam -Shadow Ball Used to run Fake Out on it, but coverage felt more appealing. Pychic gets boosted by some fields, Psyshock not. (but physical damage gives more versatility, so I kept them both.) Persian (lvl 46), Technician Impish -Slash -Bite -Fake Out -Taunt This guy nails Shade's ace, like, seriously. This guy is a decent mon for the beginning, even though the fella is getting less and less done at this point. Is also a third weakness to fighting. (In the back:) Garbodor (lvl 40), Aftermath Timid -Acid Spray -Toxic Spikes -Toxic -Sludge Bomb Really helped me with setting up on some bosses, but at this point everyone seems to have a poison-type to absorb its spikes. The guy is getting overshadowed at this point, so I think it had its run for the game. ------- I was thinking about Magnezone first, but it gives me another Fighting-weakness, plus speed might be an issue. I don't really know what to add or take away now, so I wonder if I overlooked something.

I had an awfully dark one in mind, but seeing this I'll keep it to myself. Instead, have a PG-one: What is useless and wears chainmail? A Magiklarp.

Iirc, she said it might be possible to be sooner, but they'll definitely be in the last one.

Which guy always guesses right? One Hunch Man. Yup.

Kudos to beating Kiki, even without Honchcrow. I'm curious how you'll beat the next one. (You know, if you're lucky, you can catch Murkrow with Prankster and Perish Song...)

Just keep slapping Fern like that and you'll certainly keep our appreciation. (yes, such a gif would be great) For Zorua, you have to chase him around all alleys. Murkrow was with certain weather/time iirc. you'll find it on the hunt. You could've gotten them before Shade, though, iirc.

Can't you do the mission to assault Craudburry's house yet? Nets you a Carvanha/Houndour...And scaring the other gang out gives you access to Zorua and Murkrow...You might wat to train the panda for that, tho.

At this point I'm thinking "What about Emolga/Pachirisu? You can annoy the everloving crap out of people with it..." (Seriously, Super Fang/Nuzzle/Lovely Kiss + Bulk = evil), but out of the three, Magnezone seems the better choice to me, but slightly. You're also at the point you can get Rotom and its many forms iirc, so why not choose that? (Or you could opt for Heliolisk and choose Dry Skin/Surf or Solar Power/Solarbeam iirc. Or Compoundeyes Galvantula.) l'Oréal.

Sirius said that iirc, and yes, that was the implication. He killed Corey's wife for the Ruby Ring, too, after all. If you think Charlotte would be angry, don't forget Saphira...hoo boy.

You mean 'fall off'?

I might be wrong, but I think you can get Stunky in the alleys...Might give you some decent coverage.

Sure we'll get all the TMs eventually...but do you really think we'll get EQ this early? (probs for E18-19 I think)

This makes me wonder on what field the final battle will be (in the main story)... It's a bit dissapointing/terrifying there's no way to break/create the field, but eh, it's already cool as it is. If you want to be really funny, you can add as effect that all remaining mons on the winning side in battle get healed up completely (as an Happily Ever After)... Still excited if you'll get E16 finished before Gen 7.

Wouldn't our character be a bit more buff, then?

First, thanks for clarifying that abbreviation. That is a reasonable train of thought, however most people holding shitty jobs under a horrible employer don't quit. That is because they're too frightened to become jobless, because they fear not getting a job again (quick enough), due to lack of demand or skills (because they couldn't afford getting those). So said businesses don't fall apart. An example in gaming industry: Of course if more people are participating, it's better for the economy, that is obvious. But don't assume people don't want to work, people are participating. Illustrating that: wasn't the unemployment rate in the US below 5%? (that's 7,8 million of around 159 million) Of that small fraction, only a small fraction hasn't held a job for at least 27 weeks (26%), of which a part can't get a job because they lack qualifications and the ability to aquire such things (or, you know, they are in jail). The amount of people abusing your system is, by those accounts, tiny, and some do so because they have little option left. Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate So the economy isn't broken because of participation rate, the cause lies elsewhere. (Sweden has a good-functioning economy, and they have a 6,3% unemployment rate, for example.) Have you ever found it difficult to find people who whan to play Monopoly? I do, nobody at home wanted to play along. One of the reasons is because once a player starts to get a decent monopoly, it becomes more of an endurance test for the others of how long they can keep in the game, reliant on lady luck.That there are no rules to to keep it enjoyable and further-game-breaking ones is the original point of the game. Let's be honest, your government is tiny compared to Western European countries. The point also is that due to bigger companies being free of regulations, the market becomes less competitive because it destroys smaller businesses. That taxes are killing the latter is actually incentive to lower them there (directly, or indirectly by means of support) and raising them for higher classes. The rising wealth inequality actually creates said 'us vs them'-system, where one can get away with much more if they have larger affluence. Try to explain me otherwise why a rich person committing the same crime as a poor person is punished much less, if at all, or that they can get away with tax evasion while we can't. What I'm saying about the rich sitting on wealth is not that they have to generate economic growth more, it's that they are generating it less of it compared to lower incomes. That means that they have to spend more in absolute terms, but not in relative ones. If that was unclear, re-reading the article of the guardian in my previous post might help. It's not because the rich can do something that they will. As I stated, the richer someone is, the more of their income gets absorbed into their wealth, rather than actually generating economic output. (and that output is less of consumable goods as I explained, meaning you can't cover it with a consumption tax) Donating to charities is done by most in said class for money laundring and tax evasion, since that money spent has tax benefits/exemptions, making governments miss out on hundreds of millions, if not billions. So it's not a win-win, the average person, who relies in any way on government services gets hurt (like public education, health care, road maintenance...). That's something that happens in my country, too. If you really want to study that, you can read this document: http://www.oecd.org/ctp/exchange-of-tax-information/42232037.pdf (it's really long, though.) Even if the money is donated without any ulterior motives, charities' actions can actually inflict more harm if not careful. (even the very first episode of Adam ruins Everything handled that, 'Adam ruins Giving'.) And why would you have to hire more people if you already make an exuberant profit that can't be endangered? Why would Time Warner Cable for example hire more staff if they have a climate without competition to demand investment?

That one percent owns over a third of the total wealth in your country, and it's increasing even further. And as I said earlier, upper-class people relatively need to spend less money on consumable goods, so they have more money left to spend in goods that actually make money. You could compare it to a game of Monopoly, if you're familiar playing it. The things that make it so frustrating and unpleasant to play are the things that are the foundation to some of my most critical arguments. Yes, the middle and lower class possess the most businesses in quantity, that's the point. They scoop up much less of the economic growth than the upper class, that's what's the problem. Part of the legislation proposed by us it that the former gets better support while withdrawing more from the latter, so growth gets spread more equally. I live in West-Europe, and we have a much stronger middle class thanks to our social policies (even though it is shrinking like everywhere else). Additionally, most revenue richer people receive goes into their wealth, which stifles economic growth. Just because you have more money, that doesn't mean you'll spend relatively as much of it than when you had less. To your argument about the 10-10000 dollars: It does indeed seem weird if you put it like that. Although, if the poor person only makes eleven dollars, and spends ten, they are contributing more of their income to the economy than a person that spends 10k while making 20k. That is a more complete example of what happens in reality (just multiply with 1000 and voila). A more detailed example you can find here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich Although it does happen that somethimes harder/better work nets better results, often aquiring more wealth is done simply by holding on to aquired/inherited goods. Having a decent amount of stock in EA, for example, will net you millions no matter how big of an idiot/sloth you are. Not to mention the effect of monopolies, patent (abuse) and lobbying, which are near impossible to get (at least with patents, one that nets you a decent profit) when you're middle-class or lower. Having a big capital advantage gives you agency to bypass competition and legislation, which I think you agree on is vital for keeping an economy working. If you want one of the most blatant examples of this, I can direct you to something that directly affects you: your internet connection. Tell me, which company provides you service? (Assuming you can't have Google Fiber,) Aren't you dissatisfied that you have no other options? Well, there's a reason for that. (see spoiler) It requires none to little 'hard work' or 'fiscal responsibility' to maintain such a cash cow, just holding on to it and pushing some money in Washington is pretty much enough to fix that increasing income revenue for a very, very long time (that is, you have to be really, stupendously unlucky to lose it). P.S. Idk what NYSE means. If you use such abbreviations, it would be very helpful and kind to clarify them.

I might not have stated clearly what I meant with 'one argument'. It was meant to apply only on your argument of 'living comfortably on government assistance', not on the one about inefficiet workings of those services. My apologies for that. It seems logical at first that differences would be proportional to the money acquired. That's not what happens in practice, however. Having more money increases your gains even in relative terms, that's why most of the economic growth happens in the upper class, while lower- and middle-classes grow less (or even stagnate/shrink when the economy falters). You can verify that. You can save up all you want, but after paying debts etc, you'll have less money to spend on goods that produce wealth, rather than consumable goods that don't create wealth, than someone with a bigger capital. As of that, taxing on consumption disproportionally hurts lower-class citizens while hardly affecting upper-class ones. Add to that that capital accumulates over generations through inheritance. If I'm correct, if you compare inherited money to the income over all citizens (a relative term), it shows a clear (and enormous) shift towards the upper class, even when taxation on it is applied. My fingers couldn't follow my head, so something went missing in my previous post. The millions there have to been in context of providing a service that serves upper-class citizens primarily, since you stated it is on businesses to create services that people consume. So, only those who can afford such investments can create a service that provides specifically to said class. It's not that poor people can't invest, but that they are less (likely) able to, and their investments net lower relative returns.

Hardy can run a TR focus sash Solrock/Lunatone as a lead, perhaps (plus Memento and/or Stealth Rock to screw you over)? I could imagine that incapacitating many challengers...

There are multiple options for that fight. I would argue Mamoswine is a good option, although you'll have to rely on Ice fang instead of Icicle Crash (You still have Ice Shard, though. And it can have Thick Fat, not sure if Mist changes the field, which also works in your favour). The electric types given do well, too, and if you're desperate even Manectric wold do fairly decent (if you're lucky, you have HP ice on it)

That is indeed unfair, I'm not arguing that. You'll always have some people being able to abuse any system (without becoming a complete police state), while on the other hand many don't manage at all (hence for example that so many people are affected by predatory lending), though. Bringing up one example isn't satisfactory to state a point. That example in particular could be solved by minor tweaks in the system of food stamps, I believe, too. Consistency is quite important to have an effective service, indeed, so that more people are reached who actually need it. If you don't understand why richer people have to pay more taxes, try to think the other way around, and ask why poorer people have to pay less. I think that'll make it easier to understand. For one, you can argue that it comes down to the Matthew-effect (that's how it's called in our country): money generates money. If you have a lot of money, it's much easier to make even more of it than when you have less of it to begin with. (thinking about underlying reasons might give you a better understanding of it) As consequence, this generates an increasing wealth disparity, lowering the mean wealth over time. This is bad because richer people spend less of their money than poorer people percentage-wise (one reason is because they simply don't have to, someties they hardly can). By that, less money is spent in the economy over time, which makes it smaller (if given a static amount of money in the economy. If you take increasing total money into account, you can state that economic growth gets stunted by wealth disparity.) Setting up a business requires investments, so a certain capital is always required (by lending or possession) to create one. The costlier the goods/services distributed, the more investment is required (most of the time). You can't reasonably demand from a lower-class-inhabitant to be able to set up a service that attracts millions of dollars from high-class citizens, we aren't all Andrew Carnegie (or often even a middle-class, for that matter). Surely, you need a certain amount of wealth disparity to encourage productivity. If I'm correct, though, this decrease in growth has been found in studies (although global economy is very complex, so it's hard to find such trends, and I can't recall the source, sadly). I found an article, though, but one has to go through the original sources to assure it as fact.. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-wealth-gap-is-damaging-the-u-s-economy/

Maybe it should be made as a gamble for RP on what will come out first: Sun&Moon or Episode 16. That might be fun

Well, I guess 'by equity' is called otherwise. Damn. I didn't cover inequal payment of disabled workers, so it's good you brought that up. What I did try to convey is that some people can't hold better jobs than those entry-level ones due to that very disability. It's hard for someone with Down Syndrome to climb the ladder (if said person can function on its own), for example. (I know that such people are rare, but it's only one possibility out of many.) Hammering on that people need to be fiscally responsable misses the point, since most people are. People can be systematically, continuously screwed over just by bad luck in the current system, regardless of how responsible they are. If you have to pay thousands of dollars for cancer treatment (because healthcare in the US is pretty messed up), your car gets stolen, hell you could be screwed over by a cop abusing Civil Forfeiture...it is discomforting how few people can actually recover from such a fiscal setback. For elaboration, You might want to check out John Oliver's episodes on bail and predatory lending (payday loans). I understand he probably has different views on how to handle things, but he brings up good points regarding how poor people get screwed over just for being poor. (And a special mention to army veterans...) (bail) (predatory lending) (civil forfeiture) By mentioning that people with access to stamps etc. probably have less burden than those who don't, you merely move the issue to those who don't get such assistance. It only suggests those services aren't distributed properly, possibly due to systemic failures. Also, for such services to work properly, they have to be gradually withdrawn by increasing income, so people actually are incentivised to work better paying jobs (otherwise it is possibly worse for them to do so). I might be wrong, but I think the system in your country is gradual. Whether people can live on welfare simply depends on how well the system is constructed. In my country, it is a bit bogged as well due to flaws in the system. (we used to have family members living on it, fyi. We didn't really get along well.) To properly design it, you have to make sure the incentive lies on seeking employment and holding a job. For example, often most/all welfare benefits drop if you do get a job, making remaining unemployed more favourable. If you keep in mind that some of such people will remain anyway, the question is what you dislike the least: some people living on the backs on society, or some people living in inhumane conditions, possibly also dooming their offspring to such lives (because (extreme) poverty has some serious physical and mental effects). I live in Europe, and even here we have an (in my eyes) serious amount of people living in such conditions, I can't imagine how many would be affected if there was less access to welfare. Now, I like to give some of the fiscal advantages of distributing welfare. By insuring a basic income on which people can properly live on, said people will live healthier and be more educated (assuming a decently working system). By that, not only will people actually be more capable to acquire higher-paying jobs or start businesses on their own (which is good for the economy), said healthier lifestyle also reduces costs in the medical department on the scale of the government. Added to that, not having to worry about being screwed over by chance increases productivity (and happiness), which is also a boon for the economy (and their salary).