-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
"Uncompetitive" and "Overcentralization": What do they really mean?
- Thread starter Woodchuck
- Start date
Arguably Speed Boost isn't the only thing that made Blaze broken. It got Hi Jump Kick, which has been buffed to be even stronger than Close Combat, minus the stat drops. Sure, the 10% accuracy drop and high recoil hurts, but screw 120 STABs, Blaziken has a 130 BP STABbed move to work with. Combined with the ability to Hone Claws if you are paranoid, or Swords Dance for outright sweeping, there you go.
It's the same reason as like, allowing Gen 4 Chomp into OU, so long as it doesn't have Outrage, Earthquake or Draco Meteor.
P.S. Haunter's sig. Look at it.
It's the same reason as like, allowing Gen 4 Chomp into OU, so long as it doesn't have Outrage, Earthquake or Draco Meteor.
P.S. Haunter's sig. Look at it.
This. By using Stone Edge, you willingly take the risk of it missing, and if your only Volcarona check relies on this move, then you deserve to lose one game out of five against it. Random burns can be annoying, but you're expected to evaluate the risk and reward of every option available and their rewards to make the best possible choice. By always using TTar to take Fire Blast, you choose to let it be burned one time out of ten.
Jirachi's Iron Head is also competitive, as it's not much more than a multi-hit move. If the opponent managed to paralyze/kill all your Jirachi checks, he deserves this large chance of winning. Until then, just don't get paralyzed, use something faster or keep some healthy steel resist and you won't be in any trouble. Even Machamp has perfect, luck-free counters (such as bulky ghosts), and with team preview it's not that hard to prevent it from even using Dynamic Punch.
So, in all these cases, the better player might lose because of bad luck but that's fine because he made these choices and can't complain when the risk kick in.
Luck only becomes uncompetitive when skill no longer manages it. Brightpowder and Double Team deemed uncompetitive because the opponent has no safe, luck-free option. No, Aura Sphere and No Guard aren't relevant when their few users all get trashed by the evasion abuser. There is no "risk vs reward" evaluation : just do as you would, but praying your move will hit. No safe option, no counter, no workaround. I honestly wouldn't mind evasion if there were viable options, but even moves Taunt, Roar and Whirlwind can miss, and even Skarmory can only take so many hits (high chance of being 2HKOed by Garchomp's +2 Outrage with rocks).
PS : please talk about Blaziken in another topic, as I fail to see what it has to do with defining these two words.
^Double Team, etc. aren't any more/less competitive than any other move. It's just that the majority of people/the people with the biggest say don't like it. They want to minimize luck as much as possible because they personally find it more enjoyable that way.
If people are competing with each other, then you have a competitive environment, period. The amount of skill/luck present doesn't change that. If enough people wanted to get together to create a metagame in which Double Team was allowed because they, for whatever reason, preferred it that way, it could be just as competitive as what we have now. You could argue that skill would be severely diminished in such an environment, but again, there is no required amount of skill in order for something to qualify as a competition.
The only factor that determines how competitive one thing is compared to something else is how dedicated the participants are to winning. The less dedication, the more uncompetitive it is.
If people are competing with each other, then you have a competitive environment, period. The amount of skill/luck present doesn't change that. If enough people wanted to get together to create a metagame in which Double Team was allowed because they, for whatever reason, preferred it that way, it could be just as competitive as what we have now. You could argue that skill would be severely diminished in such an environment, but again, there is no required amount of skill in order for something to qualify as a competition.
The only factor that determines how competitive one thing is compared to something else is how dedicated the participants are to winning. The less dedication, the more uncompetitive it is.
Speed Boost is NOT what made him broken. It was the combination of dual 120+ BP STAB with few resistors, high base offenses, and a one-turn setup along with Speed Boost. For example, Speed Boost Ninjask and Sharpedo are far from broken; this shows how Speed Boost is not inherently a broken ability. Therefore, we cannot just ban Speed Boost- we must ban Blaziken itself.
Next time you try to defend Blaze Blaziken, go to the appropriate thread and read all of the intelligent and coherent arguments that can be found there. Your argument unfortunately does not fall under this category.
Are we seriously going to discuss Blaziken once again? Blaziken without Speed Boost wouldn't be voted Uber, Blaziken without Hi Jump Kick wouldn't be voted Uber, Blaziken without Attack EVs wouldn't be voted Uber. But now Blaziken is banned as a whole as we've always done, so let's please stay on topic about overcentralization and uncompetitiveness, please.
So, who here has actually read DougJustDoug's thread "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame?" Now his thread does not answer these questions. It just points out things that we want in a metagame. It does not tell us what we should do about them or what is the best way to achieve them. It simply states what we should be aiming for.
One of the characteristics he pointed out is competitiveness.
In the section on competitiveness, he mentioned Sirlin's article "Playing to Win." While DJD did say that not everything in that article applies to Pokemon, the general concept of playing to win is something we want to encourage. As such, I thought I'd show you one paragraph from Sirlin's Article that I think definitely applies here:
"Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is another great way to get called cheap. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can't counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn't I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. The game knows no rules of 'honor' or of 'cheapness.' The game only knows winning and losing."
This is a great way to describe our problems with Evasiveness, or at least the original culprits: Double Team and Minimize. If those strategies are indeed so good, why don't the best players use them? Why are they banned? It has nothing to do with uncompetitiveness. It is, in fact, people being as competitive as possible. No, the problem is over-centralization. Evasion raising is a fantastic strategy that requires you to have very specific counters to reliably beat. If everyone is forced to run Evasion or Evasion counters, the variety of the metagame will drastically decrease. As DJD pointed out, variety is another one of the things we desire in a metagame. It is for this reason, and this reason alone (I would hope) that moves such as Double Team were banned.
Basically, my point is that uncompetitiveness does not exist. Or at least not in the way people are claiming it does. Being competitive is playing to win, and using whatever strategy is best to do so. We do not ban things because people like winning with them. We ban things that interfere with the qualities we desire in a metagame.
One of the characteristics he pointed out is competitiveness.
In the section on competitiveness, he mentioned Sirlin's article "Playing to Win." While DJD did say that not everything in that article applies to Pokemon, the general concept of playing to win is something we want to encourage. As such, I thought I'd show you one paragraph from Sirlin's Article that I think definitely applies here:
"Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is another great way to get called cheap. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can't counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn't I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. The game knows no rules of 'honor' or of 'cheapness.' The game only knows winning and losing."
This is a great way to describe our problems with Evasiveness, or at least the original culprits: Double Team and Minimize. If those strategies are indeed so good, why don't the best players use them? Why are they banned? It has nothing to do with uncompetitiveness. It is, in fact, people being as competitive as possible. No, the problem is over-centralization. Evasion raising is a fantastic strategy that requires you to have very specific counters to reliably beat. If everyone is forced to run Evasion or Evasion counters, the variety of the metagame will drastically decrease. As DJD pointed out, variety is another one of the things we desire in a metagame. It is for this reason, and this reason alone (I would hope) that moves such as Double Team were banned.
Basically, my point is that uncompetitiveness does not exist. Or at least not in the way people are claiming it does. Being competitive is playing to win, and using whatever strategy is best to do so. We do not ban things because people like winning with them. We ban things that interfere with the qualities we desire in a metagame.
^Thank you. You explained what I was trying to say, only in a more cohesive manner.
One of the most notable instances I can think of when people misused the term "uncompetitive" was when we had the Inconsistent/Moody problem. People kept on insisting that this was an uncompetitive ability, but that was a completely inappropriate choice of words. The ability was so potent that you'd be a fool not to try it out. Wanting to win defines competitiveness, and if you wanted to win, you could most certainly use Moody to do that effectively. The ability was broken, but it was very competitive. Same thing would apply to having a Uber Pokemon brought down into OU. If you really wanted to be competitive and win, you'd abuse the hell out of that thing.
One of the most notable instances I can think of when people misused the term "uncompetitive" was when we had the Inconsistent/Moody problem. People kept on insisting that this was an uncompetitive ability, but that was a completely inappropriate choice of words. The ability was so potent that you'd be a fool not to try it out. Wanting to win defines competitiveness, and if you wanted to win, you could most certainly use Moody to do that effectively. The ability was broken, but it was very competitive. Same thing would apply to having a Uber Pokemon brought down into OU. If you really wanted to be competitive and win, you'd abuse the hell out of that thing.
I'd say something like this:
Uncompetitive: Either something that is not good enough to be used competitively, or something that makes the outcome of a match dependent on luck. There are too many examples of the former to name. For the latter, good examples include Inconsistent/Moody and Evasion boosting moves as well as OHKO moves. Moves that have less than perfect accuracy can still be competitive, or not depending on their other merits, as the choice to use what is generally a more powerful, but less accurate move is just that - a choice. It's still in the player's hands.
Overcentralization: Are you using ______? Do you have something to deal with ______? If the answer to one or both of these is no, can you still win reliably, all else being equal? If you have to use something and/or its counters to win, there is overcentralization. Merely being popular, or even powerful is not overcentralization. Even being common is not overcentralization, as long as it can still be beaten without specific counters.
Whatever definition you use though, it's very important that definition be clearly and objectively defined. Otherwise you just get people dismissing it as "things top players don't like" or otherwise not taking it at all seriously. Subjectivity must be avoided here at all costs.
There will always be those that will insist on dismissing facts as opinions, no matter what you do. But when those people are right, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Along the same lines, whatever definition that is used needs to be used as close to universally as possible. Otherwise you have two people saying the same words and meaning different things, making clear communication impossible.
Uncompetitive: Either something that is not good enough to be used competitively, or something that makes the outcome of a match dependent on luck. There are too many examples of the former to name. For the latter, good examples include Inconsistent/Moody and Evasion boosting moves as well as OHKO moves. Moves that have less than perfect accuracy can still be competitive, or not depending on their other merits, as the choice to use what is generally a more powerful, but less accurate move is just that - a choice. It's still in the player's hands.
Overcentralization: Are you using ______? Do you have something to deal with ______? If the answer to one or both of these is no, can you still win reliably, all else being equal? If you have to use something and/or its counters to win, there is overcentralization. Merely being popular, or even powerful is not overcentralization. Even being common is not overcentralization, as long as it can still be beaten without specific counters.
Whatever definition you use though, it's very important that definition be clearly and objectively defined. Otherwise you just get people dismissing it as "things top players don't like" or otherwise not taking it at all seriously. Subjectivity must be avoided here at all costs.
There will always be those that will insist on dismissing facts as opinions, no matter what you do. But when those people are right, it's time to go back to the drawing board.
Along the same lines, whatever definition that is used needs to be used as close to universally as possible. Otherwise you have two people saying the same words and meaning different things, making clear communication impossible.
This man is smart.
Of course, sometimes these things are disliked even by the average players, and that's when they can become problems (true problems).
I think your definition of over-centralization is absolutely fantastic. Is it possible for us to use in the testing process? No more than any other definition, but that's just the nature of the metagame. But I do think it perfectly describes what makes something over-centralizing.
However, I strongly disagree on the uncompetitiveness part (well the second half, at least). If you read my post above, you would see that I define being competitive as playing to win. While making the match more luck dependent may be less fun, if it helps you win, it is, in fact, very competitive.
The only real way to be uncompetitive is by playing without trying to win. And I highly doubt that is a real problem in our metagame.
I think that a LO Scrafty with DD, HJK, and Moxie could be worse, especially considering how he will have enough bulk to tank the DD set up, where you might need scarf really to get the SD for blaze.
I'm going to call BS on this. Evasion was never allowed in 5th gen. It was never even allowed in 4th gen. How can you possibly come to that conclusion when you have zero relevant evidence? Oh, and before you respond, actually running the odds shows that evasion is a poor choice, so don't try to justify it based on "theory".
Heh, no risk vs reward evaluation. That's rich. Do you really think that the brightpowder user didn't evaluate the risk vs reward of using it instead of leftovers or life orb or whatever? Do you really think that the Double Team user hasn't considered what other strategies might bring to his team?
These days it seems like the definition of "uncompetitive" is "the justification for banning evasion".
I don't really know if ovecentrilization is even the right way to describe the problem, to me it is just a symptom.
What your really trying to say is that Garchomp is/was 'overpowered' or OP. This may be due to a pokemons type/ability/moveset in any particular combination. Because it is overpowered and low riskevery kid on the block uses it because it provides easy wins against teams/strategies not specifically built around it. Or use it themselves to force an opponent to counter it.
What your really trying to say is that Garchomp is/was 'overpowered' or OP. This may be due to a pokemons type/ability/moveset in any particular combination. Because it is overpowered and low riskevery kid on the block uses it because it provides easy wins against teams/strategies not specifically built around it. Or use it themselves to force an opponent to counter it.
OK, OK, you got me on that one. But the point still stands. This strategy is completely viable as far as competitiveness. The only real thing that is changes if you negate that one sentence is the fact that it then means Evasion should not be banned. I have already shown that it is in fact a competitive strategy, and if it is not a good strategy, or an over-centralizing one, then why the hell is it banned?
However, I do believe what I said is likely to be true. I said you need specific counters to reliably beat it, though anyone with some luck could possibly do so.
I disagree. As I described earlier with the quote from Sirlin, if something is so good that it is OP, then why isn't everyone using it? OP is subjective. However, if it is so OP that everyone who wants to win must use it or use the rare counter for it, then it becomes over-centralizing. Over-centralization infringes on variety. We want variety. Then and only then (at least in this specific example) do we ban it.
Blaziken over centralized the metagame because everytime he showed up he was at +2 speed, +2 attack, Sun was up, you have no priority user, he's at 100% health and could destroy your team with Flare Blitz/Hi Jump Kick/Swords Dance/Stone Edge/Protect. All at once.
Garchomp is uncompetitive because Oh my god, he evades attacks and destroys every steel type with a combination of SD/Outrage/Stone Edge/Earthquake/Fire Fang/Substitute. Such a big troll.
"Let's take out the main reasons to use sand and sun because I haet them and then complain about Drizzle being too broken!".
Garchomp is uncompetitive because Oh my god, he evades attacks and destroys every steel type with a combination of SD/Outrage/Stone Edge/Earthquake/Fire Fang/Substitute. Such a big troll.
"Let's take out the main reasons to use sand and sun because I haet them and then complain about Drizzle being too broken!".
To those quoting the dictionary, this isn't really relevant. I doubt Vaporeon, Mesprit and Porygon2 are "bulky" according to any definition from the dictionary, but we can still say it as long as everyone knows what it means. "Competitiveness" has been used on smogon for ages to mean "fitness, desirability for the competitive metagame". We don't care whether or not it's in the dictionary, everybody understands it that way, what we need is not pedantry but a clearer definition of the limit from where luck becomes undesirable.
There's nothing like that for Brightpowder, Double Team or Sand Veil : all you can do is pray that whatever you will do won't fail. You're not "taking the risk to miss 20%" since there are no viable accurate options (Machamp and Aura Sphere users are outsped and OHKOed, and even lol-scarf can only break the sub and die). No safe option, no workaround, the point still stands. People mentioned Phazing and Encoring somewhere else, and well, these can miss too and get your Skarmory 2HKOed by a +2 Outrage.
You're not talking about risk vs reward but cost vs benefit, which has nothing at all to do with luck... Furthermore, I was obviously talking about risk vs reward for the player on the receiving end of the dice roll. Stone Edge is "risk vs reward" for the user, as he gets a strong Rock move by taking the risk of missing. Random Fire Blast burns are "risk vs reward" for the opponent, as switching TTar on Chandelure usually lets you take only minimal damage and Pursuit it, but you take the risk of being severely crippled. This kind of luck is desirable as long as skill is involved.
There's nothing like that for Brightpowder, Double Team or Sand Veil : all you can do is pray that whatever you will do won't fail. You're not "taking the risk to miss 20%" since there are no viable accurate options (Machamp and Aura Sphere users are outsped and OHKOed, and even lol-scarf can only break the sub and die). No safe option, no workaround, the point still stands. People mentioned Phazing and Encoring somewhere else, and well, these can miss too and get your Skarmory 2HKOed by a +2 Outrage.
The thing is not only that it makes the match less about player ability and more about luck, it doesn't even necessarily help you win.
Consider.
After four rounds of using a OHKO move, you have a 75% chance that you killed something. How many pokemon can weather four attacks, from anything decent? Now, how much better would you have done if you intelligently chose attacking moves with a decent sweeper?
Inconsistent has a 1/7 chance to get an evasion boost, multiplying accuracy by 0.6 for the first boost. It also has a 1/7 chance of raising base speed by 100% and a 1/7 chance of raising your attack stat of choice by 100% of its base value... but all the other possibilities are either less useful or not useful at all.
Those things are banned not for being so good you'd be stupid not to use them (that's called overcentralization) but because they take the emphasis off of competitive skills such as player ability.
From a competitive standpoint, those things aren't very good because they might work very well... or very poorly, with no input from you as to which is the case.
While presumably players here find it enjoyable to play effectively and efficiently, fun doesn't have anything else to do with it at all. What has everything to do with it is that luck, by its very nature is random and skill is not. Relying on luck to win means unreliable wins at best. Relying on skill gives results proportional to ability. Be it in a mild form such as hating evasion boosting moves and OHKO moves, a moderate form such as also hating critical hits, or a severe form such as hating any kind of significant variation in effects this is the centerpoint of the anti luck mindset. And it's very common among the competitively minded in any game for a very good reason.
Overcentralization isn't always a bad thing. There are people like me and my freinds were seeing something like Scizor, Blaziken or Chomp is worth looking forward to. As some have noticed, many NU Pokemon can actually be run in Ubers with reasonable success. Over centralization gives people like me a chance to use Pokemon nobody would think of using to counter Pokemon people assume are too strong for OU. Let me bring up Salamence. I was surprised Smogon was even considering banning him. I never had a problem with him. Actually, when I found out he was gonna be banned I started running Delibird and Weavile just to be funny. I never thought of him as a threat because I usually had something that didn't have trouble countering him. Like, Empoleon was OU, but it was like he didn't exist. Unless Salamence was using Earthquake, he walled him with ease. And I rarely saw him with Earthquake because everyone used Fire Blast instead. Things like Empoleon and Mamoswine are in OU for a reason, and when people resort to using Cookie Cutter OU teams and cry that they stop working, instead of using their heads to make a team that doesn't have a problem with what everyone is running.
Then when I make posts like this they cry I'm lying and other garbage instead of using their heads. One counter I had for Mence was Shuckle. In Sandstorm Toxic, Life Orb, and Sandstorm racked up damage quickly. The special Defense boost meant Shuckle had no problem with special attacks and HE GETS GLUTTONY! Give him Ganlon Berry + Rest and once he hits half health, just start walling.
Then when I make posts like this they cry I'm lying and other garbage instead of using their heads. One counter I had for Mence was Shuckle. In Sandstorm Toxic, Life Orb, and Sandstorm racked up damage quickly. The special Defense boost meant Shuckle had no problem with special attacks and HE GETS GLUTTONY! Give him Ganlon Berry + Rest and once he hits half health, just start walling.
If that were true, I would agree. But I do not believe it is.
First of all, I can't help but pointing out that it is not a 75% chance, but in fact a 68% chance of getting 1 or more KOs (I hope I did that right, I have a final exam in this stuff on Tuesday). But that is besides the point. I'm not saying this specific example is a good strategy, but I do believe it is a viable strategy. Would someone be using OHKO moves if they didn't want to win? No. So while it may not be a good strategy, it is a competitive one.
If it is not that good, why was everyone complaining about its ability to sweep everything. And even if what you said is true, what's wrong with relying on luck. Some people may not realize this, but Skill is not the opposite of Luck. Skill takes Luck into account, and makes decisions based on it. So if a luck based strategy is good, then skilled people use it. Hence it becomes over-centralizing.
I already addressed this but I'll say it again. In fact, I once saw a post by someone I really want to quote here, but I cant remember who said it or where, so I will repeat it as best I can.
"Skill is not winning in the absence of luck. It is coping with luck, working around it."
If a player really is more skilled, then in the long run, they will get more wins no matter what. And if they can't do that unless luck is severely regulated, then they really are not more skilled anyways.
TBH, I would much prefer it if we simply trashed these terms. People throw them around too much, often using them as the sole focus of their argument. In a perfect world, people would be forced to explain themselves, and what they mean, rather than just have a go-to phrase that's ridiculously subjective.
However, the point of this thread is to define these terms, so that when people use them in future, we can pin down their argument, and not just use them to try and get something banned that they don't like. So lets do that.
I think Expeditious' definition of 'Overcentralisation' was spot on, to the point where I really feel I have nothing more to add here. Moving on.
'Uncompetitive' is a murky, disgusting, ambiguous kind of word, and it's the one that I have the most issues with. 'Competitive' itself, courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary, means "Of, pertaining to, or characterised by competition; organised on the basis of competition"
Which is pretty much what somebody else said about 'competitiveness' (can't remember who exactly). IMO, I think we should leave the definition at that, and instead of using this as a go-to word to ban things, we simply explain ourselves more fully in a proper argument.
So long as we understand what Overcentralisation means, then I guess I'm OK with that one; however, I kind of wish that people would just stop using the word 'uncompetitive' full stop.
However, the point of this thread is to define these terms, so that when people use them in future, we can pin down their argument, and not just use them to try and get something banned that they don't like. So lets do that.
I think Expeditious' definition of 'Overcentralisation' was spot on, to the point where I really feel I have nothing more to add here. Moving on.
'Uncompetitive' is a murky, disgusting, ambiguous kind of word, and it's the one that I have the most issues with. 'Competitive' itself, courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary, means "Of, pertaining to, or characterised by competition; organised on the basis of competition"
Which is pretty much what somebody else said about 'competitiveness' (can't remember who exactly). IMO, I think we should leave the definition at that, and instead of using this as a go-to word to ban things, we simply explain ourselves more fully in a proper argument.
So long as we understand what Overcentralisation means, then I guess I'm OK with that one; however, I kind of wish that people would just stop using the word 'uncompetitive' full stop.
They're overused terms which people use as an excuse to say something is broken, purely because they can't think of a better argument. Most of the time they don't even know the meaning of the two words. I'm not even sure if overcentralization is a word at all. Chrome doesn't think it is.
If you're going to say something is broken, please go into detail why, instead of simply stating "it's overcentralizing and uncompetitive" and expecting everyone to accept that as a valid reason.
If you're going to say something is broken, please go into detail why, instead of simply stating "it's overcentralizing and uncompetitive" and expecting everyone to accept that as a valid reason.
Not gonna lie
Sand Stream + Sand Rush makes Excadrill incredibly broken.
If Drizzle + Swift Swim is banded you guys should ban that too :/
Sand Stream + Sand Rush makes Excadrill incredibly broken.
If Drizzle + Swift Swim is banded you guys should ban that too :/
First, that's an awfully unsupported argument.
Second, that doesn't even belong here. Take that to the Suspect Testing thread.