Anti-hax clause?

[yadazhai]

Sometimes battles are decided based on an insane amount of hax(luck) and not skill like they should be. I think we should have something that invalidates a battle if too much hax is involved. Here's how it works: First, based on the probability of things during the match, a "hax rating" for each player is calculated by multipling together the probabilities. Then, the two are subtracted from each other and divided by the number of turns. If it overwhelmingly favors one player, then luck played too big a role.

1. Calculating the "hax rating"

a. Critical Hits
-20/19 for user of move if not crit, 1 for target
-1/20 for target of move if it is a crit, 1 for user
b. Move Accuracy
for example, consider a metagross using meteor mash(85 acc)
-100/85 for target of move if it hits, 1 for user
-100/15 for user of move if it misses, 1 for target
c. Special effects
ex. Jirachi using iron head
-10/6 for target if it flinches, 1 for user
-10/4 for user if it doesn't flinch

Multiply these numbers together for each player and then subtract them from each other. Divide by the number of turns. If the resulting number is more than some number, say 10, then the battle doesnt count.

 

[MrIndigo]

This is basically complaining about the underlying engine of the game, which is not really all that interesting to discuss. Sometimes you get unlucky, but the number of games where repeated unluckyness would hit a large value is incredibly small.

All of the best games in the world have a random element. Otherwise, there's no game at all.

 

[-FUCK-]

All of the best games in the world have a random element. Otherwise, there's no game at all.

So your saying chess isn't a game?

 

[Ekaru]

Just make the anti-hax clause a coin flip, problem solved! :)

...Seriously, your idea is just plain confusing. I think changing the battle engine like this shouldn't be done, but it'd help if you would make your idea clearer, it is currently confusing.

EDIT: Chess has a random element, so yes, it is a game. The random element is extremely tiny though (deciding who goes first for the first game you do), but it's there.

 

[Omega Phoenix]

Something like this was already implemented last year for april fools, and it didnt really turn out too well with a lot of complaints from users. Pokemon is the game it is, and we should play it as it is given to us, not what we what it to be.

 

[supermarth64]

This has been done before.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52736

 

[Chillarmy]

This was already introduced. I'm pretty sure that searching "Luck clause" or something of the sort will lead you to the thread.

EDIT: Fucking gay, I got ninja'd

 

[cantab]

Well it was previously an April Fool's joke.

While it seems like it would be possible to calculate whether luck favoured one player, the problem is that not all events are equal. Hypnosis or something from a wall missing may not mean too much, while a Stone Edge miss from something that then gets OHKOed back is rather more serious.

Besides that difficult, how extreme luck is too extreme? 10% chance of it happening? 5%? 1%? 0.01%?

In tournaments, the idea may have some merit - though a replay would be a very different match anyway, since each player would know a lot about the other anyway. In ladder matches, it doesn't really matter since long term averaging smooths over individual lucky wins or unlucky losses.

 

[1017]

Imperfect Luck

Though this would be a good idea, changing the underlying game mechanisms is changing Pokemon to another game. The fact is, there really is nothing we can do about imperfect luck [he he] in the Pokemon game.

 

[Smurf.]

Having been on the shit end of the stick on many an occasion, I would certainly be in support of a anti-hax clause. How many times has stone edge hit in all my time playing? About 45% would be a fair and conservative estimate. Consider that when using it i am in a potential game breaking situation, 2x DD gyara or Su(b)perior vs significant counter, it is simply frustrating to the point of disbelief. As a result of hax, the CRE of any team is significantly damaged, despite the "smoothing over from long term average". It is beyond me how anyone can truly rate the success of their team with the enormous presence hax or bad-luck or whatever mask you want to put on it.

 

[Hegna]

You missed it.
April Fool's joke last year.

Trust me, a real Anti-hax clause wouldn't work.
People switch how they would play a match because of lucky changes.
One lucky change on a Pokemon that would have actually been useless for its owner in that match could change how both players play their teams for the rest of the match. Hax changes how each player plays as the game goes a long, and thus you can't just measure its effects by how often they happen. Heck, a lucky crit might actually make it worse for the player who got the crit in rare cases. How much one lucky event changes the outcome of the game cannot really be measured using such a simple formula as the one you're suggesting. If it is possible at all (which I doubt), there would be a lot more to it.

 

[Game Freak201]

I remember having my eyes glued in PR when they were talking about this. When changing the game mechanics, you are no longer playing pokemon. This is not what Smogon is. It is a competitive Pokemon site, not competitive pokemon Smogon Edition.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Luck is a part of Pokémon. You can't invalidate a battle because of something beyond a player's control; that's just unfair.

\Heck, a lucky crit might actually make it worse for the player who got the crit in rare cases.

I remember seeing in someone's sig when a Celebi got a crit against an Anger Point Tauros' substitute. So all they did was quadruple its attack, as a regular hit (the move was Grass Knot, I believe), would have broken the sub anyways.

That's why even a formula would fail: math can't take into account the circumstances of the hax, only how much occurred. This is just a flat-out bad idea.

 

[RBG]

Being a fake proponent of this for April Fool's, Even I am saying no to this.