1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Guest, PO has ceased our separate tiering and adopted Smogon tiers for SM. More information and updates here.

    Dismiss Notice

[BW2] Luck in competitive Pokémon (policy)

Discussion in 'Gen 5 Discussion' started by coyotte508, Apr 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    167
    With the weighted suspect voting system taken for now by the other ladders, and with my apprehension of an hasty voting for the new issue of Garchomp + Brightpowder (at least for some people), here is a debate thread (OP by eric the espeon) about how luck should affect tiering.

    ------

    A debate which has been running for almost as long as Pokémon has been played competitively, through the Stadium inspired clauses and crits of RBY, soft bans of ADV, to clauses of DP and BW is how (and whether) to manage the impact of luck on the game we play. Pokémon will never be an entirely predictable game, I do not think more than a very small minority would suggest modifying mechanics in the standard metagames simply to eliminate critical hits, or the random damage variance. Perhaps even fewer seem to support banning game elements widely used for damage or other effects which involve significant elements of potentially gamechanging luck (imperfect accuracy moves, confusion, paralysis). However there are a fair number of users who believe that reducing the impact of luck is a worthy goal in and of itself, irrespective or any other goals shared by many users (lack of centralization, removing too powerful (aka "broken") threats, or simplicity). Due to this, various game elements bans and other rule changes have been suggested with the intention of taking parts of the game seen as "haxy" out of either a specific metagame, or the game as a whole.

    For the purposes of this debate, to avoid any miscommunication, here are some definitions which are important to have pinned down or often misused. If you think I have made an error, please VM or me rather than going off topic:


    • Competitive game - A game which is played by competitive players. VGC is an example of a highly competitive game, even when team matchups play a huge part, because there is a strong incentive to win which makes players more competitive.
    • Game element - A Pokémon, move, item, or ability.
    • Broken - Too effective. A game element which causes the user to win too often despite preparation.
    • Hax - Something which has a significant affect on the outcome of a game and could have gone either way. Generally things which are less likely to have occurred and have a greater impact are considered more haxy.
    • Skill - Any ability which leads the player to win more often, including but not limited to: Prediction, knowledge (movepools, common sets), teambuilding, long term thinking, and weighing up risks.
    • Luck dependent - High risk/high reward. Effective only when luck is on the user's side. The less likely something is to work, the more dependent on luck it is.
    • OHKO/Evasion clause - A ban on sets of moves. Implemented on PO for brokenness reasons, though both brokenness and luck dependency were parts of the debate in gen 4.
    • Soft ban - Not a ban. A situation where something is legal, but many players think of it as noobish or unsporting to use.
    • Ban - Either move up a tier, or remove globally (usually called a clause).

    More may be added as they come up.


    This thread is to debate the general principle of whether we should aim to reduce luck through ruleset editing. You may use specific examples, but this is not the place to discuss particular suspects, they will be considered on a case by case basis in their own threads. This is also not the place to discuss complex bans.

    This thread will be closely moderated, personal attacks, incivility, and very poorly thought out/one line chime in posts will not be tolerated. If you've already received a Think before you post warning, follow the advise here.
     
  2. Dragonknight

    Dragonknight New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, we should not limit them at all. Luck is a part of the game, and even though it costs everybody matches (some important, some not), we must all agree that this is part of the game. There is a luck factor in pretty much any game, and this is no different. The common player wants to get lucky sometimes, and have fun. Sure its not fun when you get haxed, but we all like the feeling of getting lucky against a stronger opponent. Reducing the factors of luck is like cutting out the rooks in chess.
     
  3. Amarillo Caballero

    Amarillo Caballero Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Nintendo perspective is that evasion, multiple sleeps, and all that other stuff that some would consider as uncompetitive is part of the game. So, as a VGC player who plays by Nintendo rules and has to deal with Minimize Psyche Up teams, naturally my prospective is: Luck is part of the game, Deal with it. If you don't like it, tough, get better.
     
  4. zeroality

    zeroality Artificial Insanity

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    1
    As much as I personally dislike luck in Pokemon, my opinion on the metagame and tiering has changed in recent times.

    I think "lets ban this Pokemon, let's ban this move, let's ban this ability" is honestly an outdated mentality and it needs to stop. I can understand how you need to remove certain things because of how overpowered they are or how they negatively affect the metagame but some of the current proposals are just outright ridiculous.

    How about we stop clausewhoring things and just play Pokemon? If you lost to luck then well, that's Pokemon! If you dislike something specific then you are free to play other tiers, or another server altogether.
     
  5. yiran

    yiran Become a Magical Girl!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone dislikes hax, or more formally known as luck.

    But I don't think it is "ban worthy".

    We all have been playing actual pokemon games. Do they remove every element of luck? Do they make the game completely skill based? The answer is no. Pokemon is a game that includes luck naturally on it's own. What we are playing is "competitive battling", which is different from the games we play on our DS. Even though removing elements of the game that induces luck makes the game arguably more "competitive", it makes the game less "Pokemon". And every game comes with luck. Even if you remove ALL elements of luck in Pokemon, there will still be team matchups. What about chess? I know White and Black have approximately equal win/lose ratios, but it is still luck that determines whether you get your own prefered team colour.

    Therefore, I believe luck in competitive should not be banned (Unless it gets "broken").

    I don't think it's broken either. If someone disagrees feel free to say so.

    tl;dr Luck is part of every game, deal with it.
     
  6. fidgety

    fidgety Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    we are not smogon we should not try to remove 80% of the luck factor in a given metagame luck is naturally part of things if you aren't willing to accept it go over to smogon.
     
  7. Wrexsoul

    Wrexsoul New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since my stand-alone thread on the matter was locked and I was redirected here, I will repost my write-up regarding OHKO's here.

    I'd also like to ask; Is the sole basis of having a clause here that it's broken enough to reliably get you to #1 on the ranking? I have to say that is a bit of a flawed reasoning, if so; In a random battle ranking system, things like what I describe below can have an overall poor influence on the competitive environment despite being too random to actually get someone to the top. In short; A random element that, for example, makes the user thereof lose 70% of the time, but beats the opponent 30% of the time, solely based on luck and chance, without any influence of skill of the game otherwise, -still- affects the metagame in a negative way, despite not enabling the user thereof to get to rank #1 himself. For such a thing to exist, it has to have a positive effect on said metagame that outweighs the negative factor. Is this line of thinking really not one that you folks here can agree with?

    Anyway, below is my original post on the matter:

     
  8. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    167
    OHKOs do not grant you a 30% chance of winning. Even if you remove counters such as subs, sturdy, sash and type immunity for moves not named sheer cold.

    And there's plenty of situations where it comes down to 30% chance winning, like a last turn needed rock slide flinch or scald burn that happen regularly and often decide the outcome of the battle. They're not worse than OHKOs, because even if they fail they damage.

    If it's not broken or borderline broken, or too disturbing, it shouldn't be banned. There are some hax wins and some haxlosses but it should even out.
     
  9. yiran

    yiran Become a Magical Girl!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    0
    You yourself already admitted that it isn't broken, (despite not enabling the user thereof to get to rank #1 himself. ) so the only reason to ban it would be because of luck.

    And why is banning things purely because of luck is not a good idea? All the above posters have already adressed this.
    Regarding the last sentence of your previous post:
    "Luck is a factor in Pokemon, deal with it" is not a valid argument either - Don't go down the slippery slope people! If there was a move with 2% chance of instantly KOing all the opponent's pokemon, would you allow it? It's only luck based after all, and 2% is a very small chance!
    But Luck is a factor in Pokemon, that can't be denied. And for the example, I can bet that Nintendo will not make a move of that sort, so it is probably not valid. Also, OHKO moves have counters - Sturdy pokemon, Substitute, Protect, and immunities (not for Sheer Cold). Even though you are more likely to hit once out of two times, the opponent most likely gets to set up however it pleases.

    That being said, OHKO moves are completely valid strategies. We are completely destroying a type of playstyle if we ban OHKO moves. For example, in the lower tiers, we could use Lapras (who has very decent bulk) and sit there and spam Sheer Colds. If you lose to it, it is your fault. You did not prepare for a threat which could of beat your team.

    Cases where they OHKO your whole team outright is 0.0729 percent, so I don't think we need to take that into account.

    EDIT: Ninja'd by Coyotte :o
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2014
  10. Harry

    Harry Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think people tend to overlook the times they GET hax as well, because as much as we all want our opponent to quit when they hax us, how often do we really let them have our points if we hax them out of a win? at best, usually, the nicest will tie it in a gesture to say "yeah, sorry man, I shouldn't have won, but I kinda did"

    Also, without hax.. consider the metagame entirely composed of things that are almost only ruined by crits. Crocune, Reuniclus, Restalk Curselax, all these things would run rampant if not for hax, because the typical mean of beating them is to bring the game to a "crit war" AKA first to crit wins.
    We've all had our fair share of hax against us and for us, and frankly, it works out so that it'll happen to everyone equally, doesn't it?
     
  11. joe99ubers

    joe99ubers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the problem with OHKOs lies not in letting the user winning most of his battles but granting occassional losses to others on the ladder whos teams are consistently better. I never played gen 4 on shoddy battle but from what I understand the rating system was more an average rather than addding points for a win or a loss. So on this sim, where a loss costs more than it would have there hax impacts hugely on a ladder ranking as one loss can cause a drop of 20 points or so. On the argument as a whole, we can't completely eliminate luck, as critical hits and flinches are built into the game and so cant be banned by us, but I feel that we should try and remove strategies that try to maximise the element of luck in a game.
     
  12. Ginku

    Ginku Banned

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    817
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off I'm against changing or removing any Game Mechanic.

    Then, I think a distinction between changing/removing game mechanics and banning game elements needs to be made. I don't think anyone here wants to ban critical hits.


    Personally, I'd support banning things purely because they're luck based because in my opinion, the metagame should be as skill-based as possible, which OHKO moves and the like clearly don't support.
    Then again it's not the end of the world if they don't end up banned; I'm getting haxed either way.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2011
  13. Gym Master

    Gym Master New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think we should not reduce it in the current tiers whatsoever.
    However a new "haxless" tier could be implemented for complainers
     
  14. Groudon Ramsay

    Groudon Ramsay Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    7
    People seem to forget that "un-enforceable" clauses are in place in every single game they play, namely, Sleep Clause. Someone, please tell me, how could you possible enforce sleep-clause in-game. Some will say, "oh but that's an extreme case," and while they might be correct, it still doesn't change the fact that its an un-enforceable clause that we, as a competitive community, have added to the actual game-mechanics. The point I'm trying to make is that we have already deviated from what we consider "standard," so what exactly is stopping us from going a bit further?

    That being said, I'm 100% against removing any luck element from the game, I just can't come up with a good reason not to.
     
  15. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    167
    I'll answer this and let's not create a huge issue about this. For one nintendo games have that clause (the ones on gamecube/wii), for two we could say "if you sleep two pokemons you lose", there would be a small difference but it doesn't change much, and with the sleep clause as is there won't be games lost to dumb things like blissey not having natural cure or misclicks.
     
  16. Wizarus

    Wizarus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one has a problem with non-induced hax. No one has a problem with induced hax - as long as it can be countered. Flinch hax, critical hit ratios, OHKO moves can all be countered without running bad pokemon on your team. What I have a problem with is induced hax that can't be countered, e.g. Snow Cloak, Sand Veil, Bright Powder. And please don't even joke about pokes using aerial ace/shock wave/magical leaf. Even Aura Sphere is limited to a small amount of pokes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2011
  17. Wrexsoul

    Wrexsoul New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was one of my main points, yeah. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

    Edit:

    Poorly chosen figure perhaps; I didn't mean to relate the chance to the hit rate of OHKO moves, it was just an example figure to highlight why it could be a problem even though it's not a long-term winning strategy. OHKOs are a clear case of "putting your chances with luck" rather than trying to actually out-skill the opponent, something that has been frowned upon during all the years I've played competitive pokemon. It cannot be compared to flinch rate and similar, since those are byproducts of a game played with skill to get an advantage in a very even game, and nothing you can plan ahead upon.

    Finally, as for my example with the 2% autowin move; Of course it's not going to happen, and of course it's a bad argument if I was using it to argument for my cause. It was just a blanket argument to counter the blanket "luck is part of the game" arguments I'd get otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2011
  18. [TUS] Charizard92

    [TUS] Charizard92 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think 0HK0 should be banned, or at least have a combo ban with 0hk0 and lock-on/the like. That eliminates the hax and bar a team with sturdy or sub, guarentees a win. I don't think we should be forced to have a counter for every single "cheap" tactic on our team, because first of all that's impossible with the plethora (yep, I used the word plethora, I'm boss) of "cheap" threats in Gen 5. I'm not suggesting we eliminate every strong threat, however we should eliminate the ones that are outright rediculous, and some haxy items (kings rock and brightpowder, among others).

    To start off, I want people to read this link (Feel free to put it in the OP as a suggested/required read beforehand, it is very valuable at some points). If you're too lazy to read it, or don't get the metaphor from that game to pokemon, it essentially says that to win, you have to look past the "noob" or "frustrating" strategies, and create counters to them. Take for example my signature (yet unkown to most) starmie set.

    Code (text):
    1.  
    2. timid
    3. 252spatt/speed
    4. rapid spin
    5. thunderbolt
    6. psycic
    7. HP Fire
    8.  
    9. While this set may seem relatively normal (sorry if it was popular before I got into pokemon, but I do believe it's rather original), it is actually a counter to a couple things I found frustrating. first of all, I was having trouble with gyara, which makes Tbolt and obvious choice. second was machamp, which is where psycic comes in (I typically have to sacrifive starmie, but it's better than having my team swept). Lastly is Scizzor, the hands-down most popular switch in that I've had. After getting fucked multiple times by pursuit, I decided I have to stay in, but t-bolt or surf isn't enough. So whats gunna rape scizzor? HP fire. What does no one expect? HP fire. It also comes in handy dealing with foretress, as you can spin away anything, then 0hk0.
    10.  
    If you cared to read that, good on you, you know what my starmie set is if you ever face me on PO. If not, then too bad for you.

    While some things are arguably ("arguably" is to be politically correct) broken (lock-on/sheer cold) that only specific things can counter, other things can be countered much more easily, like a pursuit trapping scizzor (I know its a gen 4 example but you get it).

    Another route to take is the route of there are just too many threats in the unstable metagame, so you're bound to face a team your team just can't handle. With the vast majority of pokemon available, I can guarentee someone will find a team that yours can't beat under any odds. Hax teams are some of these teams. However, simple things can counter them; aura sphere or lock-on in ONE poke to counter Sand Viel, dragon chop (which isn't under powered at all) /multi hit moves/ taunt to counter subseeders/focus sashers, safe guard/lucky chant to counter pokes who rely on crits and status (although crit abusers are much less often). I'm sure there's plenty more I can't think of right now.

    Now, as for what I think of banning "hax", thats rediculous; it's part of the game. however, some things are rediculous themselves.

    Sand viel / brightpowder / sub is crazy on it's own, I've swept halves of teams to come back with Chomp as my last poke using this strategy, although admittedly it was still close.

    0HK0 / lock-on essentailly removes the hax from the 0hk0 moves, something that was given major unlucky hax to be fair. Just combo-ban, if someone wants to waste their time trying to sheer cold me then have at it while I set up.

    I'll post more if I think or find them

    FYI, this is definatly my best post on here, possibly on any forum XD
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2011
  19. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    This distinction needs to be made, as many posters have confused the two in their argument. Game mechanics such as crits, damage rolls, accuracy, and so on, cannot be enforced in-game, and therefore cannot be banned, because then we're not really playing pokemon any more. Something like Sleep Clause is entirely enforceable in-game; once a pokemon is slept, the player is simply unable to use that sleep move again, and they lose the match if they do. Bans of pokemon, moves, items, and abilities are just as enforceable in-game, as both players can simply refuse to the banned things. The argument that OHKO moves and certain other hax-inducing aspects of the metagame can't be banned holds no air because of this.

    With that said, I believe OHKO moves, Quick Claw, Brightpowder and the like should be banned because they do nothing but induce more luck into the game, which makes it less competitive and less fun to play. You can argue all about how they can be countered, and how they have a small effect on gameplay, but what cannot be disputed is that they do absolutely nothing but allow players to win regardless of skill, which is against the point of having a metagame in the first place. While I can't be positive, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of players on the ladder hold a similar view.
     
  20. -Manaphy--

    -Manaphy-- Overconsumption

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm with this.


    I'm just going to ask some of you: Would you rather have a meta game which is more Skill Dependant over luck, or would you rather have a meta game where you could win a match do to dumb luck? Obviously things such as Critical Hits and the like cannot be prevented (banning a game mechanic is just stupid), but shouldn't our job, as to make a better meta game, to reduce the sheer amount of luck possible? Some of you probably disagree, but I digress.
     
  21. User Name

    User Name Life is a maze

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't believe in banning hax items.
    Luck is indeed a strategy, and while it may seem to take less skill than other strategies, it is still a strategy.
    Nor is it as game-changing as Rain or Sand.
    If a player decides to abuse Luck, that's their chosen strategy.
     
  22. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it's not a strategy. Those moves and items specifically require no strategy, just luck. It's not a strategy because it specifically does not add a new level of skill, only luck, and while you can argue about whether it "really matters" or not due to the limited chance of the items or moves working, the fact that they only serve to add more luck to the game is undeniable, and is the reason why I am completely against their use in standard play.
     
  23. User Name

    User Name Life is a maze

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    3
    Strategy definition.
    Definition 1: The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of warfare
    While only loosely applicable to Pokemon, luck is part of this too (weather, shape of the land, what have you).
    Definition 2: A plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal
    The definition most related to Pokemon, Luck based STRATEGIES can be a way for someone to reach a goal--namely, to win a match.
    Definition 3: The art of using similar techniques in politics or business
    While I could BS a way to how this relates to Pokemon, it doesn't, so I'll leave it alone.

    Simply put, Strategy can involve luck. Strategy is simply how you choose to do go through with something. If this way is through luck, so be it.
     
  24. -Manaphy--

    -Manaphy-- Overconsumption

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think the definition of a strategy really relates here. Whether or not we should allow a 'strategy' which is based entirely upon luck is more of an issue.
     
  25. Galblade

    Galblade FAT PRINCESS

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,417
    Likes Received:
    2
    IMO Hax that is avoidable like BrightPowder, Sand veil and similar items/abilities are completely unnecessary and add an extra layer of luck that isn't really needed and make pokemon more of a gambling match than it should be. Though with the abilities, they are only activated some of the time under certain conditions, and banning the ability from some pokemon may severely limit their movepool which we should try to limit as much as possible (I mean gen 4 only sets that can only have Sand Veil/hax ability)

    TLDR: I'm against keeping unneccessary and avoidable hax in the metagame.
     
  26. [TUS] Charizard92

    [TUS] Charizard92 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just played on Smogon's server; with thier banlist and metagame, it is MUCH more stable and MUCH more enjoyable than PO server. the site was down so i couldn;t check banlist, but i betchya everything we want banned is banned.
     
  27. Jcpdragonx

    Jcpdragonx the business business

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, unfortunately, luck is a part of the game. However some of the luck in this game is unnecessary. In other words, all types of luck which are considered "broken" should go.

    OHKO in the metagame is just stupid for a two main of reasons:
    1) It is uncounterable, besides Sturdy uses (No one uses a Sturdy to counter OHKO, only for the free sash)
    2) Brings an enormous amount of luck into the game.

    I'm not nominating it for suspect, but I'm saying that this sort of luck is something we do not need in the metagame. Something like Sand Veil is very limited to viable users, so it should stay in the game. As for Garchomp who is the only good user of it in OU, Garchomp should be decided on itself rather than Sand Veil, avoiding complex bans is probably the best way to go.
     
  28. Wrexsoul

    Wrexsoul New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    This, pretty much. I have yet to see a valid argument against the simple question asked above; "Would you rather have a meta game which is more Skill Dependent over luck, or would you rather have a meta game where you could win a match due to dumb luck?" I don't really see why some of you seem to put philosophy and dictionary excerpts ahead of the actual gaming environment. The only thing mattering is: "Does it make the competitive environment better without changing core mechanics of the game?". That's it. Nothing philosophical about it.
     
  29. OkamiBW

    OkamiBW Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only argument people have going for them against that argument is that they don't want to change the game mechanics too far from what the original game is supposed to be. Personally, I'd prefer playing a game that's based on Pokemon with our rules in play since we deem them better for competition.
     
  30. Lamperi

    Lamperi I see what you did there

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    11
    Using luck based items / abilities / moves comes with a drawback. You only get 4 moves, 1 item and 1 ability.

    That is also the reason they aren't commonly used in higher rated games (well maybe except for sand veil over rough skin). You get more reliable results with consistent choices. The games are often rated +10, -20 when you have near 1300 points, let along higher. With luck-based gaming, you fall fast when you are unlucky.

    Generally banning everything luck related isn't needed in ladder matches at least. There are such large amount of those that anything improbable will not get too far.

    However, on tournaments luck-based bans could be considered, since only the small amount of matches allows luck-based teams to shine once in the blue moon. And that would piss everyone else in that tournament.
     
  31. OkamiBW

    OkamiBW Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    I propose a double elimination like smash to account for randomness (or even just 2 out of 3). :)

    But the tournaments would take much longer... :/
     
  32. coyotte508

    coyotte508 Well-Known Member Administrator Server Owner Administrator Server Owner

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    167
    Well, if you want to ban any non necessary luck, then ban Boil Over. Everybody who can learn surf (appart from a very few pokemon) can learn boil over too, yet on a plenty of pokemon people use boil over which is less powerful, instead of surf, for the added luck. If you want to ban unneeded luck, then ban boil over on politoed, jellicent, quagsire, gastrodon, starmie, empoleon and so on. And then everyone will laugh.

    And it's not 'different', it's a 30% chance.
     
  33. flashbolt

    flashbolt Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly to anyone who says "its part of the game" i think that is a relatively poor argument. Just because something is the status quo doesnt make it better or any more desirable. Following this to its logical conclusion there should be no tiers, they are not a "part of the game". One of the best things about these simulators is they can be editted to maximise enjoyment.

    However, i am wary of heavy handed attempts to micro-manage this game. Lots of ppl seem to want to reduce the game to a rock-paper-scissors parody to preserve "balance". with A beating B, B beating C, C beating A. or similar, this game is perfectly "balanced" and comes down to skill or prediction. It also doesnt sound like fun to me.

    I, as do many others im sure, often say to myself "well it all balances out". I think this is a thinly veiled delusional coping mechanism. We focus on the fact that statistically we should have as many crits (for example) as others in the long run, but we neglect that the same crit in different situations can mean vastly different things; sometimes a single crit can win you a match, sometimes a crit for you has no affect, sometimes (very specific cases) me getting a crit has cost me a match (fat lot of luck that was =S). Even if you assumed that you win or lose as many matches because of hax, not all matches are equal; final of a tourney vs a ladder match? 1st v 2nd on the ladder or laddering with a test team on an alt? laddering vs unrated match? Considering all these i dont think it is fair to say "luck balances out", i still say it though, it helps me not get angry (a sort of count to 10 before you speak thing, the PO server would be much better if everyone was less angry)

    My personal views on hax are difficult to articulate and to be honest i havent thought them through thoroughly enough. I would like to make one more point though;
    Personally i dont feel as annoyed if i lose to a TWave/Swagger Lanturn as much as losing to a burn from Magmortars Flame Body. Its not a probability thing, losing to the lanturn is less likely (i killed myself from full hp with confusion, lanturn couldnt do much damage to me). I think the point im making is that hax can be a strategy, i dont want to abolish parafusion, my opponent played for hax. I get more annoyed when thunderpunch paralyses what was a safe switch in, i outpredicted my opponent and got punished for it.

    I dont really know what i was trying to say but i hope it helped neways.
     
  34. Vahnyu

    Vahnyu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, boy. From where to start?

    What is Luck? The collective total of all the factors that are, along with their outcomes, beyond someone's control(technically).
    What is Skill? Any personal ability that can reliably(though not necessairily without fail) be called upon.
    What are Resources? Any limited base components that can be used to obtain a benefit from them.
    So the big question is: "What is Strategy"?

    Strategy is the management and use of all available options to achieve a goal, in a competitive enviroment. Those include, but are not limited to: "The resources that are being provided or can be obtained. The skills of the individuals who will bring the strategy to fruition. Any and all possibilities, that could potentially affect the outcome of the strategy(luck)".

    Having said that, should luck be an active part of the pokemon metagame? Short answer: "Yes". Long answer: "It already is. Deciding to use between Fire Blast and Aura Sphere(for example), against the opponents Skarmory, is a decision that hinges on a very crucial fact; wether your opponent will switch to his Air Ballooned Heatran or not. His decision is beyond your control(unless you've Shadow Taged your opponent, in which case this whole point is moot). Alternatively, deciding whether to use Fire Punch or Mach Punch against the opponents "Brelloom(Zoroark?)" or even switching in with a Sap-Sipper, Flame Charging Zebstrika.

    For every decision you make on Pokemon, you deny a couple(in-battle), or even hundreds(preperation) of other viable options. A Sand Veil is a Choise Band/Scarf not used. A Double Team, one less available attacking option. A Sheer Cold is a 70% chance of losing a fight(and coupled with Lock-on(not Stratos) is a 100% chance of reincarnating as a worm for the next 7 reincarnation cycles, but it still is a turn wasted for every potential use of the combo). You may argue that for some of these cases, the advantages far outweight the disadvantages. You may be, theoritically speaking, correct in that they do. You would also be definately Incorrect because it's not an argument. It's a fact. And the fact is, that competitive Pokemon is all about picking and choosing the best option available(barring blatantly illegal staff, such as hacking), the one that suits your playstyle the most.

    Not much more to say about this, but on an unrelated news, I just want to say I feel sorry about Chandelure's recent banning. I won't complain about it since I don't, in principle, do Dreamworld, and since Dreamworld is a fake/temporal Tier, which will eventually fall into uselessness and oblivion, it would be rather unproductive. What I DO want to say is, however, that I roflolmao'd on the picture used for Chandelure's departure to the Dreamworld Uber Stratum. Whoever thought of Sissel(or should I say Y*&^$l ) when he saw Chandelure and decided to paint that, deserves a medal of recommendation for hilariously genious thinking. Huh.
    What a Weird Mind
    I agree
    Me too


    Note: Of course, this argument doesn't address a different subject, that of Ubers. That's because I'm.... mostly neutral to the whole thing. If you take Pokemon as a cleanly competitive game, without applying any story elements to the battles, then Ubers shouldn't exist, that is, as a banning list. They should be heralded as part of the standart tier, and their exclusion, as part of a niche, akin to how UnderUsed is the (excuse the term) "sympathy" Tier, something that gives pokemon a chance to reliably compete. Personally, however, I take Polemon as a narrative game, which means that while they should exist as such, Ubers shouldn't be decided by "brokeness", rather than narrative availability. In other words, Legendaries. This, on a whole, is a VERY different subject, and the only reason I'm using it, is to prevent people from bringing this up as a hole on my logic. This Note is my opinion. It is NOT up for discussion.
     
  35. Wrexsoul

    Wrexsoul New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a significant difference between prediction-based luck and percentage-based luck. Prediction is in fact one of the main factors of skill in competitive pokemon, and should definitely not be compared to the kind of luck issues discussed here.
     
  36. OkamiBW

    OkamiBW Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have much time, but just curious what you mean by this. Please explain.

    In addition, Dream World is a fine tier, whether it's based on speculation or its own made up whatever. The main difference that I distinguish Wifi from Dream World is the ability to see your opponent's pokemon. If there can be a Monotype Tier and a Weatherless Tier, then even if Dream World goes away, why not have at least a tier that you and your opponent can't see each other's pokemon from the start? I don't want to skip out on 156 pokemon just to have that feature.
     
  37. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's no way to stop Scald from having that 30% chance in game. However, there is a way to stop OHKO moves in game: to disallow them. There is a fundamental difference between crits and secondary effects and banning hax items and moves, and that is that while critical hits and whatnot are impossible to remove from in-game play, these things are not, which is where I believe we should draw our line, and the reason why, along with everything else I mentioned previously, I believe these should be banned but not other sources of hax.
     
  38. Vahnyu

    Vahnyu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prediction is not necessarily proof of skill on your part. It may simply be a proof of absence of skill on your opponent's part, resulting in him choosing a course of action that you considered profoundly stupid, which consequently may lead to a victory for him that was achieved through inexperience. Luck is Luck, whether it is carried through brainwaves or circuits, which means that, while practically non-existant, it is simply too complex to act as if it doesn't exist. Pokemon is a variable game, not a static one. So, I say, let's treat it as such. :)


    My mistake. I meant to say "Bright Powder", not "Sand Veil". Maybe I got lost in thought :P
    As for Dreamworld, I'm sorry but I really don't think it's a fine tier. I understand the necessity of having a tier where you can use "legally unobtainable as of yet" Pokemon, but I don't understand why they don't use the Wifi clause as standard, other than simply pandering to the veterans. Whether or not they are the majority of the Pokemon community, as far as I gather, the versus battle options of the game are Wifi exclusive. I haven't engaged in it, and therefore I may be wrong on that point, in which case, please correct me. Wifi clause certainly changes the way the game is played, and that's a good thing. It doesn't dumb it down, and it feels more official. Think back to the glory days of Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow. Ever since those days, battles in Pokemon Stadium used what is actually the Wifi clause feature(more or less). It shouldn't really be that alien a concept on the Pokemon Community.


    Actually, there is a way to stop Scald from having that 30% chance of burning in game. Disallow it, just like you would with OHKO moves. Surf is even better than Scald in terms of raw power. It's precisely because Scald has that 30% chance, which supplements damage, that people use it. When your physical attacker gets burned, you might as well give up on him (unless you carry specific pokemon for healing status effects). Even then, these are wasted turns, and anyone who plays chess knows the advantage of owning the tempo of a game. And you can remove Criticals, by using only fixed damage attacks(seismic toss, night shade). Both of these cases are extreme measures, and so is banning moves in general.

    I'm sorry, but no. You don't create a better meta game by reducing the game's elements. You create another game altogether. I'd rather play Pokemon, even if it meant that half my team was put in the ice(by being frozen), and the rest was sent to an early death by a OHKO.
    ....
    Actually, now that I think about it, you don't CREATE a meta game, at all. You record it. You analyse it. You give it a push on a general direction, but you don't restrict it. People don't say at chess:"You must have as many Queens as possible at any time, or you may not stack two or more of your peons, one right behind another". They simply point that the first is a very good idea, while the later should be generally avoided.
     
  39. OkamiBW

    OkamiBW Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can simply remove and ban Boil Over altogether. You say there's no way to stop the move from having the 30% chance of burning, but you could just ban it just as easily as you ban a OHKO move. Wingull gets Boil Over but not Surf, I believe. Same with Masquerain. Castform. Emboar. Those are the only reasons you couldn't just have everything use Surf instead of Boil Over.
     
  40. cosmicexplorer

    cosmicexplorer SWAG

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that's not the point. These items and moves cannot be countered in any reasonable way, and add literally nothing to the depth of strategy and skill that goes into a game, while Scald is something that can be played around with enough skill and preparation (example, Lum Berry, a Cleric, a Guts user). The difference between these items and moves is that when they do activate, there's no reasonable way to counter them or play around them; OHKO moves like Sheer Cold get the KO regardless of typing (no switching in Heatran on a 4x resist), and Quick Claw and Brightpowder make what would be an otherwise flawless strategy useless. They completely change the dynamic of play when they do activate, because they allow for things that would never happen otherwise, and cannot be played around. You can't argue that we can "just ban Boil Over," because the secondary effects of that move do not allow for such incredible payoffs if it does succeed as do these items and moves, and because the move is not solely based around hax; it's still a reliable 80 BP water move, and just helps to free up a moveslot over Surf or Will-O-Wisp.

    This is turning into a debate over whether the items and moves are "really" broken or not, and what I'm trying to say is that that's not the point. They completely change the dynamic of play by allowing for such drastic things as, for example, an Excadrill beating a full health Gliscor because they got lucky and hit with Horn Drill, or a Weavile missing its Ice Shard on Salamence because it happened to be holding Brightpowder. I'm not arguing over whether they're "really" broken or not, and I'm not arguing over whether secondary move effects should be disallowed under this ideal, because the potential payoff of OHKOs moves and hax items only serves to increase the amount of luck in the metagame and to reduce the effect of skill, unlike any other item or move currently in standard play. Now, you can disagree with me over whether that's sufficient grounds for a ban, and I'm perfectly ready to have a vote called if necessary to sort this out, but I believe that the basic idea of these kinds of moves and items, which only serve to increase the amount of luck and reduce the importance of skill in winning a match, goes against the basic tenets of competitive pokemon as a whole, and as such I believe they should be disallowed in standard play.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.