I like this idea. Your substitute proposition makes sense, something like a .5 priority. However, how does this work with Taunt? Deoxys and Azelf leads are common, and Taunt can make or break their purpose.
-
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!
A proposition to consider.
- Thread starter Aldaron
- Start date
It would take its effect the next turn and the other pokemon will be able to use a non-attacking move when they attack at the same time.
On the damage range, I question anyone who isn't for standardizing it and having a set damage for attacks.
I can not tell you the amount of times that an opponent has been left with less than 1% HP left and I have lost a battle. It would be nice if I didn't have to rely on luck to get solid OHKO's. If an attack is supposed to OHKO 90% of the time, then I see no difference in it not killing than I do getting flinched, fully para'd, etc...
Average damage is certainly the way to go.
Also, I'd wager to say that people ALREADY do the "magic number" thing. I have talked with Iggy about using Articuno and know that it takes 279 Sp. Atk and a Life Orb to OHKO a Garchomp through Yache with STAB Ice Beam 100% of the time. I also know that if I want a guaranteed 2HKO I need to be able to do 53% to a specific Pokemon, and if I don't need a 2HKO then 38% suffices for a 3HKO guaranteed and so on. Is it so much to ask for standardized damage as we already have standardized ourselves so much?
Also, to the person who said that it would create an unnecessary gap between uneducated players and veterans: I would wager to say that there is already a HUGE gap between the two parties, and that making damage standard wouldn't do much to widen it. There are already so many different aspects to competetive battling that adding in magic numbers for attacks isn't adding THAT much to the list of things a battler must be knowledgable of. Also, we are not making a metagame for the inexperienced. We are making it for the best of the best. That's like saying that we should make it easier for new players to kill on Halo 3, at the expense of the depth that the veterens enjoy, just to make it a more even playing ground. (Just an example, I'm not implying any amount of depth in Halo 3's combat system, or lack thereof)
So in summation, I am FOR standardizing damage and ridding ourselves of the arbitrary damage range.
I can not tell you the amount of times that an opponent has been left with less than 1% HP left and I have lost a battle. It would be nice if I didn't have to rely on luck to get solid OHKO's. If an attack is supposed to OHKO 90% of the time, then I see no difference in it not killing than I do getting flinched, fully para'd, etc...
Average damage is certainly the way to go.
Also, I'd wager to say that people ALREADY do the "magic number" thing. I have talked with Iggy about using Articuno and know that it takes 279 Sp. Atk and a Life Orb to OHKO a Garchomp through Yache with STAB Ice Beam 100% of the time. I also know that if I want a guaranteed 2HKO I need to be able to do 53% to a specific Pokemon, and if I don't need a 2HKO then 38% suffices for a 3HKO guaranteed and so on. Is it so much to ask for standardized damage as we already have standardized ourselves so much?
Also, to the person who said that it would create an unnecessary gap between uneducated players and veterans: I would wager to say that there is already a HUGE gap between the two parties, and that making damage standard wouldn't do much to widen it. There are already so many different aspects to competetive battling that adding in magic numbers for attacks isn't adding THAT much to the list of things a battler must be knowledgable of. Also, we are not making a metagame for the inexperienced. We are making it for the best of the best. That's like saying that we should make it easier for new players to kill on Halo 3, at the expense of the depth that the veterens enjoy, just to make it a more even playing ground. (Just an example, I'm not implying any amount of depth in Halo 3's combat system, or lack thereof)
So in summation, I am FOR standardizing damage and ridding ourselves of the arbitrary damage range.
As I said on IRC, I really like some of these ideas (especially OD's speed tie idea). One thing I would like to adress are all of the players saying that accuracy must be kept consistant:
I don't mind Aldaron's idea here. What he's saying is that, if a attack misses (although we should probably have a cut off point, as some attacks are expected to miss multiple times in a row), I do not "expect" Focus Blast / Fire Blast to miss 2 or 3 times in a row. In fact, Focus Blast only has a 9% chance of missing twice in a row. I don't exactly call 9% "reliable" or "expectant", and I really don't mind having something similar to what Aldaron proposed implemented.
Of course, there should also be an arbitrary cutoff point in my opinion, because some attacks ARE expected to miss multiple times (Sing, Zap Cannon, ect).
I don't mind Aldaron's idea here. What he's saying is that, if a attack misses (although we should probably have a cut off point, as some attacks are expected to miss multiple times in a row), I do not "expect" Focus Blast / Fire Blast to miss 2 or 3 times in a row. In fact, Focus Blast only has a 9% chance of missing twice in a row. I don't exactly call 9% "reliable" or "expectant", and I really don't mind having something similar to what Aldaron proposed implemented.
Of course, there should also be an arbitrary cutoff point in my opinion, because some attacks ARE expected to miss multiple times (Sing, Zap Cannon, ect).
It's completely arbitrary but I think a reasonable thing would be that the move hits the second time in a row if the probability of missing twice in a row is less than or equal to 10%. Why did I pick 10%? Because when Fire Blast misses I think it's reasonable, but when Draco Meteor misses I usually am pissed. It's completely arbitrary so I mine as well have arbitrary reasons.
I think Nates idea isnt very good. Making CHes less likely is just going to make them more frustrating when they do occur.
What I would suggest, is leaving Critical Hits in the game, and possibly even increasing the likelihood back to RBY method (so that they become expected, it also is much cooler) but decreasing their impact. Like make it so they only do 133% damage or something. Possibly still annoying, but they will probably only ever matter in very close games, and very close games are sorta going to be decided by luck anyway.
But also I want to point out you are removing a lot from the game. When you start removing accuracy or side effects, you are reducing the depth of the game.
Also just so you know, I would never play this game, but I thought my CHes suggestion might be something you'd consider.
Have a nice day.
What I would suggest, is leaving Critical Hits in the game, and possibly even increasing the likelihood back to RBY method (so that they become expected, it also is much cooler) but decreasing their impact. Like make it so they only do 133% damage or something. Possibly still annoying, but they will probably only ever matter in very close games, and very close games are sorta going to be decided by luck anyway.
But also I want to point out you are removing a lot from the game. When you start removing accuracy or side effects, you are reducing the depth of the game.
Also just so you know, I would never play this game, but I thought my CHes suggestion might be something you'd consider.
Have a nice day.
The speed-tie idea is great, but it wouldn't be fair in all situations. A recent example of mine comes to mind:
My Roserade using Sleep Powder vs. a Venomoth using Bug Buzz:
Without this rule in effect, if I go first, the end result is my Roserade at full health, and the Venomoth asleep (assuming Sleep Powder hits).
Without this rule in effect, if Venomoth goes first, the end result is my Roserade at about 50% health, and the Venomoth asleep (assuming Sleep Powder hits).
With this rule in effect, the end result is my Roserade at about 50% health, and the Venomoth asleep. Essentially the same result as if Venomoth had simply gone first.
It works in the Gengar vs. Azelf instance because Azelf is always gonna OHKO Gengar, but if that isn't the case this solution brings up issues. This is the only example I can think of but I'm sure there are more.
Also, regarding abilities like Cute Charm, Poison Point, Flame Body, etc. First of all, pretty much all these Pokemon are UU, so they won't come up that much in Standard. The chance that these abilities take effect is 30%. I suggest simply leaving them as they are, as there is a decent chance either way that they will come into effect. It's the same chance as things like Lava Plume and Discharge have of coming into effect - a decent chance - and I really don't think people are upset too much when they do come into play.
Also, regarding your comment about 4.) about the effects of Fire Blast, Thunder, and Blizzard being "expected," this only applies to Thunder which has a 30% paralysis chance. Blizzard and Fire Blast have a 10% chance, so just treat those two how you'd treat Ice Beam and Flamethrower. Thunder should be left with its high % chance though.
For flinch, I would keep percentages the same, but just make it that you can't be flinched twice in a row.
I like your idea for critical hits. I would suggest after 2 turns as point at which critical hits come into effect. This allows counters which are 3HKOed to switch in, and do their job effectively and without any risks.
I say just take the average of the two extremes for the damage range and use that. Really if we're going to such lengths to eliminate probablity why should we leave even a +- 2% variation in damage? That kind of range will hardly make a difference.
My Roserade using Sleep Powder vs. a Venomoth using Bug Buzz:
Without this rule in effect, if I go first, the end result is my Roserade at full health, and the Venomoth asleep (assuming Sleep Powder hits).
Without this rule in effect, if Venomoth goes first, the end result is my Roserade at about 50% health, and the Venomoth asleep (assuming Sleep Powder hits).
With this rule in effect, the end result is my Roserade at about 50% health, and the Venomoth asleep. Essentially the same result as if Venomoth had simply gone first.
It works in the Gengar vs. Azelf instance because Azelf is always gonna OHKO Gengar, but if that isn't the case this solution brings up issues. This is the only example I can think of but I'm sure there are more.
Also, regarding abilities like Cute Charm, Poison Point, Flame Body, etc. First of all, pretty much all these Pokemon are UU, so they won't come up that much in Standard. The chance that these abilities take effect is 30%. I suggest simply leaving them as they are, as there is a decent chance either way that they will come into effect. It's the same chance as things like Lava Plume and Discharge have of coming into effect - a decent chance - and I really don't think people are upset too much when they do come into play.
Also, regarding your comment about 4.) about the effects of Fire Blast, Thunder, and Blizzard being "expected," this only applies to Thunder which has a 30% paralysis chance. Blizzard and Fire Blast have a 10% chance, so just treat those two how you'd treat Ice Beam and Flamethrower. Thunder should be left with its high % chance though.
For flinch, I would keep percentages the same, but just make it that you can't be flinched twice in a row.
I like your idea for critical hits. I would suggest after 2 turns as point at which critical hits come into effect. This allows counters which are 3HKOed to switch in, and do their job effectively and without any risks.
I say just take the average of the two extremes for the damage range and use that. Really if we're going to such lengths to eliminate probablity why should we leave even a +- 2% variation in damage? That kind of range will hardly make a difference.
I don't know if this can be done, but the speed ties could be decided based on the player who made his or her choice first.
You can select your move fast and go first, but by doing this you risk selecting the wrong move.
Or you can think for a while and make the right choice, even going last.
This is a way to not change anything in the battle itself, removing the annoying luck factor, and still adding the strategic aspect that we want.
You can select your move fast and go first, but by doing this you risk selecting the wrong move.
Or you can think for a while and make the right choice, even going last.
This is a way to not change anything in the battle itself, removing the annoying luck factor, and still adding the strategic aspect that we want.
So basically if my internet connection is better than yours, I'll always get the speed tie.
I think speed ties should be alternating. For example, in the first speed tie you'll arbitrarily go first (or it could have some deciding factor, like number of Pokemon alive), but then the next speed tie with any Pokemon, I'll win, and the next speed tie you'll win, etc.
There are too many complications with OmegaDonut's idea, and there are many scenarios that would have to be abritrarily decided individually (I use Substitute and you attack, which goes first? You use Hypnosis and I use Sleep Talk, which goes first? I use Safeguard and you status me, which goes first?) My idea isn't as elegant as his, but it removes the luck factor and is truer to the original game.
There are too many complications with OmegaDonut's idea, and there are many scenarios that would have to be abritrarily decided individually (I use Substitute and you attack, which goes first? You use Hypnosis and I use Sleep Talk, which goes first? I use Safeguard and you status me, which goes first?) My idea isn't as elegant as his, but it removes the luck factor and is truer to the original game.
I do...and the responses in this thread so far are indication enough. It's difficult enough to get much of anything close to a consensus in this community on actual competitive pokemon, where the goal is at least supposed/expected to align with an ideal that is common to all battlers, Smogon's Philosophy. With "your" ideal metagame (which I'll get to later), many will disagree on the various parts of the luck in the metagame that you would like to tweak, as has already been demonstrated in this thread. At once one can see that the solution won't be "ideal" for everyone who likes a little less luck in their battles.
You do mean "our" ideal metagame, right? I think you did, but on the off-chance you didn't, realize that there are many different appeals to different people who still greatly favor skill to luck. Like, I think average damage should stay the way it is, because I think it's really not that big a deal. (And I can use the same "I was a danmed good competitive battler" argument you did, for what it's worth.) You feel that 90-95% to 100% may be better, and that "we" would get to a better answer by testing...but you also admit that this is entirely arbitrary anyway so how would you or anyone even know what to be looking for in a test? If anything, agreeing instantly that 92.5% all the time is the best way to go should be what happens if anything, because everything else besides keeping it the way it is is unbelievably arbitrary in theory and more unbelievably hard to "test" in practice.
Honestly, what? Why is status more "expected" on moves with lesser accuracy? Fire Blast and Blizzard have the same 10% status chance when they hit as do their more accurate but less powerful respective cousins, Flamethrower and Blizzard—only Thunder has a 30% status chance when it hits. Were you under the impression that the status chance for all three were 30% (the only one that was 30% in RBY was Fire Blast), or do you for some reason think that since they have higher base power they should be "expected" to status more? I hope it's the former, because though I realize that this is supposed to be a discussion, the mere possibility of arriving at many of these changes "arbitrarily" kind of defeats the purpose of creating a ideal metagame for everything who favors skill a lot more than luck in "pokemon". Not one person is going to agree that anything "we" decide on is universaly ideal, which is closer to the way everyone regards competitive pokemon in the first place when you think about it.
Lastly, I've posted about this before, but those of you likening pokemon to poker should realize that they are extremely similar in that they way to combat luck is to see both as long term endeavors. Nobody cares if your Celebi got frozen by an Ice Fang on the last turn by a 20% Gyarados. It's one battle. Similarly, none of the actual good pros complain for more than like 10 seconds, if at all about one solitary bad beat like their set of aces losing to a backdoor flush in a tournament, because they know that they game is 99.9% skill in the long run even if one could argue that it's 99.9% luck in the short run. The same logic could and should be applied to pokemon, even if pokemon is only something arbitrary like 95% skill in the long run, because it is true. The best battlers over time, over weeks and months on the ladder, are proven by their skill, nota few random instances of luck, which goes either way over the course of time regardless.
And lastly for real, I will remind you all that, aside from my prior experience with competitive pokemon being more than enough to let me sound off on this, and even with my admission that I would favor a game that highlights skill more than luck and that I still love theorymon, I have played the Battle Tower seriously for something over 3,000 battles going back to Emerald. It is a stated fact from a Nintendo representative on Emerald that the "unbelievable hax" that people who play the BT realize/complain about is actually by design, because it "makes the game harder".
I underline this only because it shows that the only pokemon battling I care about right now by definition has a lot more hax than actual competitive pokemon, so there is reason to believe I would either hate hax more or not play the Battle Tower or both. And, further, to aspire to play on the server that is suggested in Aldaron's proposition. I don't though, because besides the fact that I recognize that competitive pokemon is a game of skill in the long run (and the move bans and tier changes we make do actually favor skill, let's not forget) "idealism" is only in the eye of the beholder and I don't think I'd prefer a game with different ideals when all we've done so far with the actual competitive metagame is to make it more based on skill in the first place.
The important and most often seen speed ties occur between fast and frail Pokemon, where one of you will OHKO the other. So having it alternating would still be unfair to whoever goes second, as they'll likely be OHKOed already.
I think this is one thing we're just going to have to accept as it is.
I think this is one thing we're just going to have to accept as it is.
I'm talking about the entire game, so if our Azelf leads faced each other and I won the speed tie (whether there's a reason or it's just luck), then our Garchomps faced each other, you would win (assuming there are no other speed ties). It would be pretty bullshit if one person won the speed tie of Gengar vs. Gengar, then the next speed tie was something like two Donphan using Stealth Rock on the same turn, but at least it's orderly and still faithful to the game mechanics.
I knew that's what you meant from the start, but from my point of view speed ties are rare enough that they'll only really happen once in a game, if at all. Of course they can happen 5 times theoretically, but realistically speaking they won't happen more than once. And it's that one time where it often makes a difference.
I don't think your way is more fair at all X_x
Why should the fact that I won the meaningless Celebi speed tie earlier in the game mean that you should win the game on the Chomp speed tie at the end of the game 100% of the time? I can see people trying to force meaningless speed ties just so that they can bank on an important one late in the game.
I love OD's speed tie idea though!
Also Aldaron wanted me to post a damage range idea I had earlier but I haven't fleshed it out completely yet, so I'll post it when I do.
Why should the fact that I won the meaningless Celebi speed tie earlier in the game mean that you should win the game on the Chomp speed tie at the end of the game 100% of the time? I can see people trying to force meaningless speed ties just so that they can bank on an important one late in the game.
I love OD's speed tie idea though!
Also Aldaron wanted me to post a damage range idea I had earlier but I haven't fleshed it out completely yet, so I'll post it when I do.
Perhaps. Though it isn't always necessarily a good thing know that you'll go first. Say I kill your Gengar with mine in a speed tie. Later our SD Chomps are face to face. I would be stupid not to switch into a steel type as I know you'll go first and use a Dragon move.
EDIT: Also, another problem with OD's speed idea is that if it occurs on the last turn when two Pokes OHKO each other, you have a tie. Isn't the point of self KO clause to prevent ties?
EDIT: Also, another problem with OD's speed idea is that if it occurs on the last turn when two Pokes OHKO each other, you have a tie. Isn't the point of self KO clause to prevent ties?
All that does is add a layer of strategy to the game. My method is orderly at least.
Giving order to speed ties is WORSE than having it random, because it's horribly unfair to the second player and also because after the first speed tie, the first player KNOWS the second player will win the next speed tie and can plan accordingly (which the second player couldn't do for the first speed tie).
So I can't stop Stealth Rocks in an Azelf ditto?
Um...that is totally not what the OHKO clause is at all whatsoever. The OHKO clause is that should you use D-Bond/Explosion/Perish Song with both last Poke, the user loses.
I know at least one user (Ancien Regime?) actually wanted to force this into the standard metagame. As this definitely isn't happening here, lemme throw in my opinion on the idea.
I really want to see what comes out of this, but I like my luck. Without luck, there's no entropy in a game at all. I guess this is what some players want, yes, but then stuff like "X will always counter Y" will always hold true. In many battles, it will come down to which team is lucky enough to pack more perfect counters than the other. There's also the issue of the multitude of status effects, accuracy balancing, and other luck-based factors that seem all but impossible to remove (like Body Slam paralysis / Bite flinch), thus making a luckless game impossible and kind of pointless.
As Jump said, there's also a fair amount of arbitrariness. When is hax "expected" and when isn't it? Will every 3 out of 10 hits guarantee to burn with Lava Plume? How can you ensure this across multiple battles?
I probably won't be playing this, but good luck with the idea and keep running with it! Congrats on the full-contributor status, Aldaron! I guess all it took was a huge flood of peer edits!
I really want to see what comes out of this, but I like my luck. Without luck, there's no entropy in a game at all. I guess this is what some players want, yes, but then stuff like "X will always counter Y" will always hold true. In many battles, it will come down to which team is lucky enough to pack more perfect counters than the other. There's also the issue of the multitude of status effects, accuracy balancing, and other luck-based factors that seem all but impossible to remove (like Body Slam paralysis / Bite flinch), thus making a luckless game impossible and kind of pointless.
As Jump said, there's also a fair amount of arbitrariness. When is hax "expected" and when isn't it? Will every 3 out of 10 hits guarantee to burn with Lava Plume? How can you ensure this across multiple battles?
I probably won't be playing this, but good luck with the idea and keep running with it! Congrats on the full-contributor status, Aldaron! I guess all it took was a huge flood of peer edits!