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.