One-hit knockout moves: Should they be legal?

If it's not going to make a difference, being true to the game might not be the best thing to do.

Click to expand...

I think it is the best thing to do. If nobody cares if Heatran's Atk IV cannot be 31 but only 30, I'll take the 30 and stick to the game. In the same vein, if nobody is going to use OHKOs anyway, why would you ban them? There is no argument to make in favor of their banning, but there are plenty in favor of allowing (sticking true to the game, giving people more options).

Anyway, as I posted somewhere before, if it's consistency what you seek, then you won't be relying on OHKOs. Of course, the risk/reward thing is a tough nut to crack...which is why I like my Seaking idea (if you have to use Seaking or another suck Pokemon, the risk is increased, reward remains the same), but I cannot see anyone following that through, which is a shame.

Like Hipmonlee said before, shifting the game from one of skill to one of luck helps worse players over skilled ones more often, and in a similar vein, doing the reverse means skilled ones beat worse players more often. This means that in theory better players would stray away from OHKOs more often than worse ones.

Staying true to the game vs less emphasis on skill here pretty much.

Yeah, but then I guess "staying true to the game vs less emphasis on skill" is another argument in itself. This probably happens in every competitive game, though.

I'll take Super Smash Bros. Brawl as an example, that's not even played on a Simulator, yet Items are removed by the "real" competitive players, as they feel that Items add slightly more luck to the game, while leaving them out means players have to rely soley on skill.

I know this can't really be the case in Pokémon, as removing every element of luck is impossible. But I don't know how we're going to judge whether we should be completely "true to the game" or lean more towards "less emphasis on luck".

One would be led to believe, that since we are a competitive Pokémon community, being "true to the game" should be more disregarded than "less emphasis on luck". But is this really what everyone wants? And if we do stay true to the game, where do we draw the line?

If we stay more true to the game, would we have to implement everything? Or would there be some kind of line drawn in the sand as to what should be allowed? But then again, we'd still have to come up with yet another way to decide these things...

Everyone would have to deal with:

- OHKO Moves allowed.
- Evasion Moves allowed.
- Garchomp as a none Uber forever.
- Wobbuffet as a none Uber forever.
- Lati@s as a none Uber forever. (Without Soul Dew)
- Deoxys-S as an Uber forever.
- Mew as an Uber forever.
- Celebi as an Uber forever.
- Jirachi as an Uber forever.
- Phione as an Uber forever.
- Manaphy as an Uber forever.

And there could be no arguments about any of it, as it's true to the game of Pokémon, which is what everyone here plays.

This doesn't mean they're the best suited competitive rules by any means, so if everyone really is in limbo on whether we should stay fully true to the game, or focus on the "best" competitive rules, now is the time to decide.

Roulette offers the player almost no decisions whereas Pokemon offers loads (Wobbuffet or not). That comparison is just totally off base; Pokemon is a game of statistics more like poker where the best move isn't the move that necessarily brings payout that turn but when made in a similar circumstance time and time again brings the best payout.

Click to expand...

Yes, so why jeopardize the point of the game by removing the concept of "best move" (or, why bother complicating it a bit too much by adding OHKO moves)

OHKO moves have a big, big counter I haven't seen mentioned yet (sorry if I read over someone posting about it); the move Substitute shuts them down. If a OHKO move hits a sub, the sub breaks and the Pokemon behind it lives. Sub up and set up is a consistently winning strategy against a OHKO user, and I think it would be really interesting to see (assuming OHKOs are even good enough to bother using at all) how the metagame would develop with this play-counterplay situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah okay I'm sure every Pokemon has a move slot for Substitute.

Also "You can't substitute when you switch in"

DJD said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

Your comparison to BT and the actual game is a bit weak. BT is a game designed where the only difficulty after a given point is to "avoid luck" considering we know what the AI can and cannot do. The biggest thing is that the AI rarely, if ever, switches.

Someone earlier remarked that we should not seek to "add more luck" to the game through this move. I think the better question is "Should we have removed it in the first place?"

I find it very inconsistent that we are dicking around with insignificant ethical issues like cartridge-consistent IV's and event moves, while at the same time completely eliminating entire sections of the game of pokemon by banning OHKO moves and evasion. There are so many elements of the "real game" dedicated to OHKO's and evasion -- moves, abilities, hold items, entire pokemon concepts. For us to eliminate them, is a bold step away from the game of pokemon and a move to create a new game entirely. Then to step back and quibble over bullshit like cartridge-consistent IV's and "remaining true to the game" -- that's really silly, IMO.

Click to expand...

I think you miss the point of the purpose of the metagame. The metagame is a controlled environment where we attempt to maximize competition. It is not just "increasing luck", but completely undermining whatever "skill" there is in this game.

Let me explain. I think Nintendo made it clear that they didn't want Brawl as a true competitive game - we see this because they removed many pieces of the game that added depth to competitive play. Yet people set rules and bans in order to make Brawl more competitive. This is what we're also doing with Pokemon. We are simply trying to make the game more competitive. People assume this is a competitive game. This is why people complain about luck - it is something that undermines the "skill" of risk/reward.

If we're trying to stay true to the game then OU should be a tier where nearly everything is allowed other than a few things that break the game (aka a "mini Ubers"). I do believe that our current OU metagame is "no pokemon with over 600" or some variation thereof with a few tweaks, simply because we wanted to have more variety than a game of "mini ubers"

CardsOfTheHeart said:

But hey, we are trying to stay true to the original game, right? Then let's get rid our overcomplicated tier system and all of our stupid clauses, and just play the game that Nintendo and Game Freak intended us to play. How's that sound?

...

(sigh)

The existence of "metagames" indicates that we don't always want to play that game. We're here to play a game that involves and promotes skill. We're here to play competitive Pokemon, and we are widely recognized as the premier competitive battling community.

Look, I have nothing against people that want to play the game as it was intended to be played; go right ahead and play that game if you wish. To ingrain that thinking into competitive battling, though, would require breaking at least NINE years of tradition. Good luck to you!

Click to expand...

We don't have an overcomplicated tier system. Ubers are banned. Every other Pokemon is fair game in standard play. All the rules we use, except for the DT/Minimize and OHKO ban, were introduced by Nintendo in the first place. There are no other rules we go by.

Smash Bros, for those referencing it, is the same. There are a few stage bans. Items are off. That's about it.

I'll admit one of the reasons I'd like to see OHKO tested is because I think it increases the viability of some Pokemon that normally wouldn't be used and wouldn't affect existing teams that much.

Imo the whole idea of "competitive battling", especially as we have it on a simulator, is "not true to the game". How is it true to the game to not follow their bans? How is it true to the game to clone pokemon (glitch)? How is it true to the game to have a species clause? How is it true to the game to not be able to sleep an opponent's team? The list goes on and on.

Competitive battling is an artifical environment. Sure we want to emulate as much of the game as we can, but not to the point that we make the game less competitive.

Firestorm said:

We don't have an overcomplicated tier system. Ubers are banned. Every other Pokemon is fair game in standard play. All the rules we use, except for the DT/Minimize and OHKO ban, were introduced by Nintendo in the first place. There are no other rules we go by.

Click to expand...

How the hell am I supposed to use sarcasm and hyperbole to prove my point when people don't detect it?

(sigh)

Maybe the Internet isn't right for you???

lol

DougJustDoug said:

I find it very inconsistent that we are dicking around with insignificant ethical issues like cartridge-consistent IV's and event moves, while at the same time completely eliminating entire sections of the game of pokemon by banning OHKO moves and evasion. There are so many elements of the "real game" dedicated to OHKO's and evasion -- moves, abilities, hold items, entire pokemon concepts. For us to eliminate them, is a bold step away from the game of pokemon and a move to create a new game entirely. Then to step back and quibble over bullshit like cartridge-consistent IV's and "remaining true to the game" -- that's really silly, IMO.

Click to expand...

"Game mechanics". This paragraph can be answered easily by this:

DougJustDoug said:

Obviously, facing human competition is completey different than facing ingame AI.

Click to expand...

...and I feel that it should be treated as such.

DougJustDoug said:

The first question I ask is "How important is it to include ALL elements of the game of Pokemon in the metagame?" The recent decision around IV's leads me to believe we are striving for something consistent with the actual game. If that is the case, then the ban on OHKO's should be seriously scrutinized. Because in one fell swoop, a significant section of game mechanics has been completely wiped off the slate.

Click to expand...

Reducing ALL luck from the game is unreasonable, as you say, and I agree. However, when there is something as simple to categorize as OHKOs that eliminates as huge an amount of luck, I believe it should be eliminated. Sometimes I like to believe that I'm playing a game of strategy and not a game of coin flips, which is what OHKO moves can be boiled down to.

DougJustDoug said:

If the ban was made to "eliminate luck", then you are kidding yourself. Luck is so inherent in this game, that it's not sensible to talk about it otherwise. Obi's point is a good one. It's not a matter of the luck, it's a question if the risk/reward is too high. Unfortunately, no one really knows if that is true or not. Until it is played and tested, it is pure speculation how OHKO's will affect the game.

Click to expand...

Actually, that was my point about risk/reward being too variable to use as an argument. I think it is a perfectly legitimate point. I would like to see an argument against how the Lapras vs Suicune argument is not high reward for no risk, even if it is speculation. "It's just speculation" is true, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that the situation I presented is entirely feasible and would have a large impact on the match. What impact it will have over the course of time is debatable, but there are many situations where these moves can be abused with no risk and I think it is silly to not take these into consideration.

DougJustDoug said:

If I had to guess, I don't think OHKO's will affect the metagame significantly either way. I doubt serious players will use them, nor will serious players engineer their teams to defend against OHKO's. However, I can guarantee that many players will bitch and whine every time a noob wins because of a lucky OHKO. But, those players bitch incessantly anyway. As if luck is not already a massive part of the game of Pokemon.

Click to expand...

Just because luck already exists doesn't mean that we should be looking to add more. To be honest, I think this just boils down to how many times we want to say "wow, that was really gay" in our matches.

I am very inclined to agree with this following quote. It's important to note that even though we are trying to stay true to game mechanics, we created an artificial environment in which to play and that competitive arena should be respected above all else:

Ancien Régime said:

Imo the whole idea of "competitive battling", especially as we have it on a simulator, is "not true to the game". How is it true to the game to not follow their bans? How is it true to the game to clone pokemon (glitch)? How is it true to the game to have a species clause? How is it true to the game to not be able to sleep an opponent's team? The list goes on and on.

Competitive battling is an artifical environment. Sure we want to emulate as much of the game as we can, but not to the point that we make the game less competitive.

Click to expand...

The choice between "maximizing competitiveness" and "staying true to the game" is a false dichotomy. Banning OHKO moves does not somehow make us not playing Pokemon. We can ban any move, item, or Pokemon we want. That is not changing the fundamental mechanics.

You can always remove most things from the game, you just can't add things.

The rule is essentially: if you use a OHKO move, you will be automatically disqualified. How does that not stay true to the game? You can disqualify people for whatever reasons you want if you are controlling the venue in which they are battling. Nintendo disqualifies people for Pokemon nicknames or breaking their clauses, if you really like the "Nintendo's will" argument. In the end, the code is the final arbiter of what is possible (which is why you can't add new things and still be playing 'Pokemon', not that modifying stuff is necessarily a bad thing), but that doesn't mean we have to have everything possible be legal.

Let me clarify some things from my earlier post:

Playing the Battle Tower has very little applicability to the competitive pokemon metagame.
I mentioned the BT, because I have spoken to people about OHKO's that have never actually faced a OHKO in a competitive situation. At all. Ever. I was merely stating that I have thought long and hard about that 30% chance for luck/unluck, and I have thought long and hard about teams and strategies to combat it. In the competitive situation I am familiar with OHKO's (the BT), I have chosen not to factor them into my playing strategy. Against human competition it would be a different story; I would be foolish to state otherwise. How different? I don't know.

I do not think we should strive to control luck in the metagame.
Through all my earlier ramblings, I never really stated this main point. This is the position I advocate. I think it is silly to attempt to "control luck" in the game of Pokemon. It is silly, because it can't be controlled. Not the luck that really matters, anyway.

"But, shouldn't we at least control the luck that is easily controlled?"
No, we shouldn't.

It clauses up the game with a bunch of extraneous bullshit that just contributes to the mass mis-education of players into believing that somehow luck is not a major factor of playing the game of pokemon. It creates a culture of whiny little pussies, that bitch and moan every time a Snorlax gets PAR on a Body Slam, every time someone has the audacity to use an Air Slash Togekiss in battle, and if God forbid someone lands a critical hit at the wrong time, they'll call you "gay" and disconnect on your ass so fast that you don't have time to remind them that they landed every single Megahorn, Meteor Mash, and Stone Edge that they spammed during the entire match.

That's why I don't like the "Luck Control Clauses". Because you can't control any of the meaningful luck in the game. The OHKO clause is a drop in the bucket.

If OHKO moves are deemed overpowered, then I am all for banning them.
This is why I mentioned Obi's earlier post about the risk/reward ratio of OHKO moves. If the risk/reward is competitively unfair, then OHKO's should be banned. But, this is a different justification than the "controlling luck" argument against OHKO moves. As I just stated above, I have no desire to control luck. But, that does not mean I advocated overpowered moves.

For example, suppose Nintendo made a move that could faint an entire team in one shot and it was 50% accurate. Is there an element of luck to that move? Yes. Would I want it banned? Absolutely. Not because it is a "luck move" -- because it is an overpowered move. If the risk/reward ratio of OHKO moves is unfair, then keep them banned. But, this is not the same as the "decrease luck, increase skill" argument being presented by others.

Wait, there is a lot of luck built into the game mechanics and you want MORE luck to affect the game?

I fail to see why controlling luck is a bad thing. If that misinforms players, then it's our fault for not educating them. Luck is EVERYWHERE in this game; if players aren't seeing that and bitch when it doesn't go their way, then why in the world are they even playing this game? I don't know why we have to cater to those people that complain and don't try to learn the game.

Besides, I have a basic problem with what OHKO moves actually do. Where is the inherent skill in "use this move and you will always knock out the opponent?" That's what OHKO moves are at their most basic form.

Also, since they would be incredibly broken if they had 100% accuracy, Game Freak decided to balance them by giving them low accuracy, 30%. Hell, now it's a matter of luck going your way when you use them. Wait, LUCK? Yeah, that's right. You can wait for the perfect opportunity to use the move, but when you finally use it, you'll need some LUCK to decide the outcome of the move.

Again, what's wrong with controlling luck? Reducing luck in the game allows a player's skill to shine--

"BUT SKILL AND LUCK AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!"

I know that. I'm well aware of that. (One of my favorite hobbies is online poker. I've won several tournaments.) I'm not saying that they are. I have no problem with elements of luck that take even more skill to use.

My biggest problem with OHKOs is that I believe the skill needed to use them doesn't outweigh the luck needed to execute such a generically broken effect. A move that can knock out some Pokemon depending on what uses it is one thing--a move that any Pokemon could use to knock out the majority of Pokemon is a whole different animal that I want to keep in a cage. (Thank God Game Freak and Nintendo restricted the number of Pokemon that can actually use OHKO moves...)

The luck argument can be brought against any move with less than 100% accuracy. This includes Hydro Pump, Stone Edge, and hell... any attack with a secondary effect that does not happen 100% of the time. This should be an argument based around whether or not the risk-to-reward ratio of OHKO moves is too weighted towards reward or not. It should also definitely take into account which Pokemon will be using the moves because I think that's a major part of the balance here. The Pokemon who can use OHKO moves aren't on the level of Garchomp or Salamence.

Risk-reward ratio? You mean we can't ban things on a more basic level? It always has to be weighing the risk and the reward?

Of course. Your luck argument is fundamentally about risk and reward. If OHKO moves were high risk, low reward or low risk, high reward you wouldnt be talking about luck at all.

The reason OHKO moves should be banned is that they are too good. They will totally destroy the metagame. The pokemon who use OHKO's are way beyond the level of Salamence tbh. Salamences strength is in the fact that it hits really really hard. A pokemon with Wailords defenses that KO's an enemy pokemon roughly once in every three turns is too good for DP.

As for substitute as a counter, it isnt quite as bad as has been made out (though it isnt good). Usually it can be sent in after a OHKO hits (which looks bad on the face of it), but if the OHKOer thinks it can OHKO you again, which you should be able to manage, then you can set up a sub, and you have a 70% chance of having a sub up against a pokemon that probably only has a 30% chance of breaking it. Like, say Lapras OHKOs you, you can send Sub Gyarados and if it doesnt switch immediately, you get a sub and a DD before their counter gets out. This sounds worse than it really is, but the point is that if you think laterally, OHKOs arent just a case of crossing your fingers and hoping.

But regardless, I think they are far too strong. Though I would be pretty comfortable with an OHKO clause. 1 kill and then you cant use them again or something. Would that be any more complicated than sleep clause?

Have a nice day.

Look, my luck argument isn't even my main argument. My main argument is that the moves automatically KO Pokemon, and I believe automatic KOs are inherently bad for the game.

DougJustDoug said:

It clauses up the game with a bunch of extraneous bullshit that just contributes to the mass mis-education of players into believing that somehow luck is not a major factor of playing the game of pokemon. It creates a culture of whiny little pussies, that bitch and moan every time a Snorlax gets PAR on a Body Slam, every time someone has the audacity to use an Air Slash Togekiss in battle, and if God forbid someone lands a critical hit at the wrong time, they'll call you "gay" and disconnect on your ass so fast that you don't have time to remind them that they landed every single Megahorn, Meteor Mash, and Stone Edge that they spammed during the entire match.

Click to expand...

We are playing a competitive metagame - we are all playing to decide who is better at the game.

Luck is anathema to skill. (I do believe that luck and skill ARE mutually exclusive, unless the game WHOLLY centers around managing luck, such as a card game where luck determines your options at a single moment - this is not the case with Pokemon.) That is a basic principle of competition - luck is an extraneous factor to the determination of "who is better". If I get critical hits every time I use an attack, causing his carefully planned team to lose to my hastily made one, how does that show I am the better player? It just means I got more lucky. Yes, luck can be "managed" - you can use items on certain pokemon to increase luck, you can use certain moves to decrease luck, etc, etc, (and can you truly call being able to cause a given effect to happen the majority of the time "luck", such as Serene Grace? How about spamming an Ice Punch with Jirachi knowing that you have a reasonable chance of getting the freeze? That's not "luck" per se, that's skill, even though technically, there''s a chance it might not work.) but luck is so pervasive that it's impossible to "manage" it without causing a severe restriction on strategic planning, since the aspects of the game designed to manage luck are severely limited.

Since luck is so pervasive however, it cannot be removed completely - all that can be done is limit its impact on the skill aspect of pokemon.


People who complain about luck are not "whiny", they're competitive, and what competitor will simply accept defeat due to factors outside his control? What athlete will accept that his team lost because of multiple bad calls against his team, for example?

Again, making an argument against OHKO moves based soley on luck brings into question other moves with lower than 100% accuracy. It also brings into question "hax items" as people call them, which under most Smogon tournaments are not banned. In my opinion, Pokemon is about controlling luck and playing with statistics.

Arguments against OHKO should not be centred around luck. It should be centred around the risk to reward ratio. For example, people are okay with Bright Powder because the Pokemon is usually foregoing the reliable recovery of leftovers or the consistent added damage of Choice Band for a 20% chance of avoiding damage.

Do you believe that 30% chance of a OHKO is far too powerful for the risk of 70% chance of missing + taking up a move slot? Do you think the Pokemon that can learn these moves will become far too powerful with no counter? I want to re-iterate that I'm talking about "far too powerful", not just "powerful". Banning OHKO moves is removing a game element. In my view, that should only be done when we find that it deteriotes the game beyond something that we can call competitive.

Hip, for the Salamence argument I meant more that Salamence has 100 base speed. Wailord in comparison has 60 base speed and 45 base defenses. His only saving grace is 170 base HP which I don't think is going to be enough to save him. I'd love to see it tested though.

Wait, should the ability to automatically knock out a Pokemon be allowed in the first place? Whatever happened to Attack & Defense and weaknesses & resistances and inflicting enough damage to knock your opponent's HP to 0 that way? Automatic KOs ignore all of those. (Read: Immunities excluded) Why should those kind of moves be allowed?

P.S. Risk-reward isn't the answer I'm looking for. I don't care about the accuracy of the moves in question. I just don't think automatic-KO moves belong in a game where you mostly have to inflict enough damage to 6 opposing Pokemon in order to win.

It's not an automatic KO though. It's a chance at a KO. If they don't hit, most of these Pokemon will be forced to switch out and you'll know exactly who it is with the OHKO move. There aren't really any Pokemon on the list that can just sit there firing off OHKO moves until they hit. Mostly just the Fissure Pokemon, but that's a ground move and I think most teams have at least one Flying type or Levitate Pokemon. If not, they should have them in a OHKO environment.

Firestorm said:

Do you believe that 30% chance of a OHKO is far too powerful for the risk of 70% chance of missing + taking up a move slot? Do you think the Pokemon that can learn these moves will become far too powerful with no counter? I want to re-iterate that I'm talking about "far too powerful", not just "powerful". Banning OHKO moves is removing a game element. In my view, that should only be done when we find that it deteriotes the game beyond something that we can call competitive.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe that a 30% chance of ignoring how well prepared I am for a pokemon and how well I am playing in a match is "far too powerful". How about instead of trying to play a strategic game, we just play a different game. Pick a whole number, 1 through 3. If I guess right, I win, but if I don't guess right, you switch the number and I get a lot more chances to guess at it.

OHKO moves remove the concept of countering, a fundamental part of the competitive metagame. Instead of trying to counter the actual pokemon at hand, we would be forced to counter individual moves. It would change the face of the game as we know it, making it much less competitive and essentially turning it into a guessing match. Granted, not everyone would use them (I sure as hell would and I don't see why any sane player wouldn't), but there's always that chance to catch you off guard and flip the entire match before you can even get off the ground.

And again, the "moves missing hax" argument is irrelevant because no matter what the attack is, there is still a pokemon that can switch into it. OHKO moves limit this since your opponent has no way of stopping you from getting that KO except for the 4 aforementioned OU Sturdy pokes or a faster Substitute, all of which are unreasonable to force upon players. You are using that Stone Edge or Fire Blast knowing that you will miss 10 or 15 times out of 100 and you choose to take the benefits of it over the bad. Even though you use Stone Edge, I can just bring in Hippowdon and make it worthless even if you hit. I can't do anything even remotely like that with OHKO moves. I can switch to Cresselia to take any of your Gliscor's moves, but surprise! I have a 51% chance of never even getting an attack off. The reward is consistently high but the risk isn't always there. If your Infernape is sweeping my team, its because you played it at the right time and had good enough team support to eliminate its counters from my team. That is a result of good playing, whereas if your Sheer Cold Articuno is sweeping my team, its because the RNG hates me.

COTH has a strong point in saying that OHKOs remove the entire point of the game, but if we are trying to analyze this in a fashion that is "completely acceptable reasoning", the no risk-high reward argument is really the convincing one.

OHKO moves limit this since your opponent has no way of stopping you from getting that KO except for the 4 aforementioned OU Sturdy pokes or a faster Substitute, all of which are unreasonable to force upon player

Click to expand...

I know this is going to come off as nitpicky and selective quoting, but I took that time to compile the list on the first page for a reason. It was to show that there are many Pokemon who counter OHKO moves. The only move with issues is Sheer Cold, where only 11 Pokemon can counter the ability.

I disagree that "changing the face of the game as we know it" is a bad thing. I also disagree that it's unreasonable to force players to have a Pokemon or two to counter OHKOs the way you're forced to have Pokemon on your team to counter the dozens of other threats in the game. Banning should be a last resort, and in the case of OHKOs, we've taken it as a first resort.

I just want this tested on a ladder to see explicitly see the changes it brings with it.

Countering the OHKO move does not counter the Pokemon using the move, and if your particular OHKO 'counter' cannot safely switch into the Pokemon using it safely there isn't much point in using it unless you can predict every single usage of the move correctly, since all of them have that not-so-low 30% chance of hitting. If you have ever played Ubers, you will know that Kyogre's Thunder tends to paralyse quite often. Its paralysis rate is the same that an OHKO move has to hit, and you can't absorb a Sheer Cold with a Blissey or Latias like you can do to a Thunder.

To me, this thread is really focusing on reasons why OHKO moves should not be banned, when we should be really looking at the benefits of them being unbanned. The only gameplay related argument is that they increase variety, but over time this might not even be true, since it will probably decrease the already decreasing number of 'Stall' teams. Sure, its great that Lapras and Articuno are getting more usage but at the cost of possibly lowering an entire type of team's usage? Although this is just a theoretical usage drop, if you think about it, there aren't many defensive Pokemon that can come in safely on a 30% chance of death.

I think we should be asking questions like:
Why were OHKO moves banned in the first place?
Was this reasoning good enough?
Why should they be unbanned now?
Does the same reasoning as before carry across to the present metagame?

Also I agree with COTH: High risk with high reward is really not favouring the more competitive players who are attempting to win as much of the time as possible and should be avoided if possible. Then again, OHKO moves don't even have a high risk all of the time.

I dont think this is likely to be accepted, but what would you guys think about unbanning OHKO moves but banning only Sheer Cold?

The others are actually more or less counterable.. I guess a pursuit Horn Drill combo could work pretty well, against a stall team, but basically it's just Rhyperior and Lapras.. And all stall teams are going to have Skarm or Forretress.. But like with Fissure, who doesnt have at least two pokes immune to ground on all of their teams?

It just occured to me thanks to the banning moves discussion..

Have a nice day.

Here in Smogon, we have two different people.

On one side, there are the people where losing is a big deal to them. These people try to minimize luck as much as possible, as they need to win as many games as possible, and they don't want something that's out of their control decide their game fate.

On the other side, there are the people where they don't care whether they win or lose, as long as they play well and have fun playing. Like the others, they try their utmost to win, but, in the end, if they lose due to being unlucky, it's no big deal.

Personally, I used to be among the first group. But when I started losing due to bad luck, I decided that I cannot remain among them, so I left that group and joined the second one. I've also seen first-hand what happens to people who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you cannot win every game even if you're the best player. This is not a criticism to jrrrrrrr, but his initial outburst was just because, according to him, he was the unluckiest Pokemon player ever... and look what happened to him.

Pokemon is a game like Poker, where skill tells in the long run, and not in a single game. That is why I would ban OHKO moves and possibly also evasion in single-elimination Pokemon tournaments. But actually, I would actually ban single-elimination Pokemon tournaments in the first place. Since skill tells in the long run, the tournaments that make sense in Pokemon are Swiss system ones. And, as I said in the OU list thread, I would treat the ladder as a continuous tournament, where the player on top is not that who wins all games, but the most consistent one. (Unfortunately, right now it isn't like that.)

So I'd reiterate that I'd allow OHKO moves in Pokemon, but, to do so, we'll first need to change our mentality that a single Pokemon game is make-or-break, since that is horribly untrue.

I'm not sure I would fit perfectly into either group.

If jrrrrrrr was the unluckiest Pokemon player ever, then I consider myself the "new unluckiest Pokemon player ever." I often find myself losing to critical hits; that's why I don't battle all that often. I don't think that I absolutely NEED to win every game, but I have the most fun when I'm winning. I can accept losses when I play horribly, but I can't accept losses when I'm always losing Pokemon to critical hits or something. (It's mostly critical hits. ><) A little unfortunate that I think that way, maybe, but it's the truth.

I still disagree with OHKO moves on a basic level; that said, I'll fully back any decision that the community makes on the matter. I'll leave the decision up to the more experienced people around here. (I really need to battle more often...)

The luck argument is in the user of the Pokemon that has an OHKO move's hands. If they want to risk completely allowing you to get a free turn, then they can go ahead and keep trying to hit with Sheer Cold while I set up whatever. Something that people don't take into realization, though, is that if I try my luck and set up against this Pokemon instead of outright KOing it (assuming my set up Pokemon can OHKO without any set up) outright, I am now assuming that the luck will be in my favor. I would be accepting the chance that I could be completely fucked over. Granted that I will pull it off most of the time, but for that one in five [or whatever] times that the OHKO move hits, it will miss the other four times. Basically I'm agreeing with X-Act in that one match does not decide anything.