1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Evasion Clause: A Discussion of a New Addition.

Discussion in 'Stark Mountain' started by Ambitions, Mar 8, 2008.

  1. Ambitions

    Ambitions

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,749
    First things first....THIS IS NOT A TIER DISCCUSIONThe ops of Smogon have voiced there opinion on this matter in recent days and I intend to respect that, so keep tier discussion out of here.

    Please read the entire post before posting...thank you.

    Now....The evasion clause and competitive battling go hand in hand. Without it, the game just wouldn't be as fun as it is for you and me. I mean, could you imagine if we had Umbreons running around, passing Double Teams to Cresslias? The game just would not be fair and balanced. Its also why we have tiers and nonsense like that.

    Anywho, it has caught my eye in specifically two threads this month that there has been a lot of controversy over one pokemon, Garchomp. Some people feel as thought it should be banned to Ubers in order to maintain a fair and balanced metagame. I have not been convinced that this is needed yet, but I do feel as though a new addition could be made to the metagames very popular evasion clause. This new addition would help make Garchomp and several other pokemon a bit fairer for there current tiers.

    The clause would ban the combination of the Sand Vail/Snow Cloak ability in tandem with Sandstorm or Hail, the move Substitute, and the item Bright Powder.

    [​IMG] + [​IMG] + SAND/HAIL = ALL BAD

    The Sand Vial and Snow Cloak abilities = 20% evasion
    Bright Powder = 7.8% evasion

    Other Additional Variables
    Confusion = 50% Confusion Rate
    Paralyzed = 25% Paralyses Rate
    Attract = 50% You poke are to sexy to fight Rate

    The combo of Sand Vail and Brightpowder = an evasion rate of 27.8%. Not very much. But when you combine it with substitute, things start getting hazy. With a Sub up you will have to hit a pokemon twice, just to do damage. Over the course of two turns, the evasion rate shoots up to 55.6%. Now that seems like quite a bit doesn't it? Well thats because it is.

    One double team does not boost a pokemon's evasion rate past 55.6% but it is banned. So basically, Substituting in weather with the Sand Vail/Snow Cloak ability while holding a Brightpowder raises your chance of evading an attack more in one turn than double team does.

    And after your sub is up you get a second turn to throw down Attract, Confusion, or Paralyses, boosting your evasion rate to even higher, as high as 70%.


    BUT we do have to take several things into consideration.....
    1. Substitutes are not permanent, and can be broken.
    2. Weather effects can be stopped by other weather effects and Golduck/Rayquaza.
    3. Confusion is temporary.
    4. Not all pokemon can be attracted to your pokemon, as there is now Briana Banks of pokemon.
    5. Sub takes away hp.

    What pokemon does this effect?
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]Pretend there is a picture of Mamoswine and Froslass here. (broken links)[​IMG][​IMG]
  2. Bourbon

    Bourbon

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,047
    So wait, you are saying Garchomp / Gliscor cannot be on a team with Hippowdon and/or Tyranitar? Its very drastic, but then if people let Garchomp get Sand Veil, it's their own fault :P No more noobs complaining... lulz

    I'm not too sure I agree about that... but you shouldn't be able to use Brightpowder, that's for sure. I used a brightpowder Porygon2 to counter Garchomp and Gliscor... can't count how many times Outrage has missed him :)
  3. Ambitions

    Ambitions

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,749
    This is what I'm trying to say, and it says it very clearly.

    [​IMG] + [​IMG] + SAND/HAIL = ALL BAD

    Substituting in weather with the Sand Vail/Snow Cloak ability while holding a Brightpowder raises your chance of evading an attack more in one turn than double team does.
  4. Bourbon

    Bourbon

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,047
    Yeah.... but it costs 25% of your HP whereas double team does not... you forgot about that.
  5. JimBob

    JimBob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Your math is kinda weird. Brightpowder raises evasion 10%. Sand Veil etc raises evasion 20%. It looks like you added, which I dunno why you would do that, but your result is close, since I think you end up with 72% evade. Then you added some more, which is dumb since if you just added up the evade then there would be a 100% chance of evading one of the hits after 4 turns (dumb).

    chance of hitting all attacks after...
    1 turn=72%
    2 turns=51.8%
    3 turns=37.3%
    4 turns=26.8%
    5 turns=19.3%

    almost everything in the battle engine is multiplied... so you can see here that the odds are vastly in favor of you missing one of the substitutes eventually. I don't agree with your argument, nor do I understand it very much, but I feel a need to bring up actual facts since your posts isn't that well written, to be honest.
  6. Bourbon

    Bourbon

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,047
    Actually, brightpowder DOES raise evasion 20%... don't know where he got 56% from though, 0.8 X 0.8 = 64%
  7. tgva8889

    tgva8889

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    105
    I don't think that math is correct. If there is a 27.8% chance to miss, over two turns that chance is 27.8/100 times 27.8/100, which is .077284. This means that there is a 7% chance to miss with both your attacks. 93% of the time, you'll hit them with an attack.

    Edit: Mamoswine is also affected by this, though less so because he's slower.
  8. Frozen_Spirit

    Frozen_Spirit

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    where is the love for frosslass?
    lefties
    substitute
    swagger
    twave

    pair it up with togekiss and you win :P
  9. chronostrike

    chronostrike

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    170
    I think it should just be that brightpowder, snow cloak, and sand veil do not function under evasion clause.
  10. CardsOfTheHeart

    CardsOfTheHeart

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,970
    Unless the main site is wrong, BrightPowder is a 10% evasion boost.

    Let me remind myself what's going on here:

    20% Veil/Cloak + 10% BP - 2% both = 28% evasion due to one or the other

    So, JimBob's math looks right.


    EDIT: Remind me why we allow BrightPowder, again?
  11. TheNastyz

    TheNastyz

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    53
    Evasion clause is good, but I don't think we should make the ones with inevitable abilities suffer being banned or what for it.
    After all, luck is more or less 10-15% of the game.
  12. JimBob

    JimBob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
  13. Janenmori

    Janenmori

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2008
    Messages:
    625
    That is like saying we should ban the ability for the effect. That is not cool. It is part of what the pokemon is. They are not increasing their evasion with moves, but by having a weather condition active. And what if you have a Garchomp on your team and you opponent has Hippowdon? What then?
  14. Sudo

    Sudo

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    801
    The clause seems alright on paper, but how do you suggest to put it into effect? On a simulator on Shoddy it's possible (just get it to negate the evasion boost), but that'd be impossible on Wifi. Banning Brightpowder would work, but Chomp would still get 20% evasion with Sandstorm up regardless. And what about if your opponent was running a sandstorm team? Does that mean you automatically lose because you have a Garchomp/evasion 'hax' pokemon?

    Edit: Janemori beat me to the punch.

    @ TheNastyz:
    You're quite the optimistic one. xD
  15. Bourbon

    Bourbon

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,047
    In case you didn't notice, it's not your fault if you have Garchomp and your opponent uses a sandstorm starter... they brought the hax upon themselves.
  16. Bran

    Bran

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    This would just be too hard to apply. Brightpowder's not a problem, but it seems like you're suggesting to ban any pokemon with snow cloak or a sand veil ability. So you're telling me that Glaceon's just too powerful to use all together? Sorry, but I'm not all up for this.
  17. evolutia

    evolutia

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    I do not feel that such a clause is needed. Garchomp is the only pokemon you listed this is threatening enough to abuse this, The others not so much.

    The majority of the time your moves will hit and Garchomp will be countered. By using Bright Powder you give up leftovers for a "chance" of an attack missing.

    If we are to ban this argumentation of chance why do we not also move to ban critical hits? Why don't we also ban moves with a chance of argumentation to a stat boost.

    My weakened Skarmory could not wall a Metagross's MM critical hit with an attack boost; if these weren't in the game my Skarmory could of walled it perfectly fine.

    Luck is a part of the game, Garchomp is at the borderline. You honestly can't say that the other pokemon are as threating as Garchomp. The majority of the time the moves you use to counter Garchomp, they will hit. Just like sometimes you will lose a match due to an unlucky critical hit.

    Your giving up leftovers for a "chance" (remember a chance does not equal to having a 100% success rate) for an attack to miss. It's a fair tradeoff. Banning hax items is silly, if someone wants to abandon the clearly superior leftovers (in most cases) more power to them.
  18. CardsOfTheHeart

    CardsOfTheHeart

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,970
    As far as I'm concerned, anything that boosts the amount of luck involved should be banned as long as it's feasible to do so. BrightPowder? Sure, banning an optional item shouldn't be a problem. Sand Veil? That's Garchomp's only ability; how would we work around that without banning Garchomp or screwing around with the mechanics?
  19. animenagai

    animenagai
    is a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,215
    just ban bright powder. it's simple and i can't see any reason why we should keep it when we have evasion clause. it can't solve the problem by itself, i know that, but once again, why is that thing not banned as part of evasion clause in shoddy? makes no sense to me.
  20. evolutia

    evolutia

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    So you find it feasible to ban pokemon from choosing their ability like Drapion and Absol because they have traits that boost their overall critical hit ratio and they also have alternative traits that do not?

    If Bright Powder increased evasion by 1 level for each turn a pokemon was in play, then I would suggest that it'd be banned but it doesn't do that.

    Pokemon is a game of luck that is hardly effected as a whole by the item BrightPowder.
  21. CardsOfTheHeart

    CardsOfTheHeart

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,970
    It's my fault for not making myself clear. My point in that statement was that, as a general rule, banning abilities are not feasible.
  22. jujuomi

    jujuomi

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,698
    Mamoswine is mad at your for not putting him there.

    If this were to be a new clause then there would be flinch-hax toge/sparce/jirachi clause. Doesn't it make it fairer in your logic?(as they hax us, and this evasion haxes us)

    lol

    EDIT: Frosslass is also fast enough to abuse sub/cloak/powder.

    YOU MISSED TWO CLOAKERS.
  23. Sunday

    Sunday God Bless Nintys Incompetence :*)
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,394
    He didn't, he just got two broken links
  24. Ambitions

    Ambitions

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,749
    Thankyou lord sunday.
  25. Automatic

    Automatic

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    348
    I don't understand how BP does not already break Evasion clause. Can someone explain the reasoning?

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)