1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  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. the_artic_one

    the_artic_one

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    829
    -it takes up an item slot that could be used for lefties or something
    -it only raises evasion by less than a stage rather than 1-6 stages like DT
    -it can't be baton passed

    I say go ahead and ban it though, it's generally a stupid item choice and it's semi-abusable on a couple pokes.
  2. Aeroblacktyl

    Aeroblacktyl The pizza doesn't scream in the oven! LOL!
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL + WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8,334
    Hmmm let's think outside the box and encourage the usage of Double Team. Now wouldn't that be interesting? And somewhat ironic if it turns out Garchomp could never hit you? Interesting indeed...
  3. Bankai

    Bankai

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    I actually always thought that BP was banned, until Garchomps started using this. I've never understood why this wasn't banned before.

    Another possibility is to give all Sand veilers/Cloakers a second ability, 'No ability' (If they don't already have a second ability, like Garchomp). This gives you no ability. Using Veil/Cloak with Substitute is illegal, but using either one of them is fine.

    Of course, this will never work for WiFi, but it could be used for Shoddy.
  4. evolutia

    evolutia

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    608
  5. Lemmiwinks MkII

    Lemmiwinks MkII

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,678
    You know, in my honest opinion, a huge amount of controversy surrounding this issue could have been avoided if Gamefreak had the common sense to not have Substitutes be affected by evasion modifiers.

    I mean think about it. A Substitute is just a decoy that sits there to sponge attacks directed at it. It doesn't move, and therefore it makes no sense for it to be able to 'evade' attacks. The only factor that should be taken into account is the initial accuracy of the move targeting it. So if any change to the mechanics were to be made, I'd much rather do this first.
  6. Amelia

    Amelia

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,851
    But that's not the case, and we can't change it, so why bother?

    In all respect, i love using BP, and i abuse it in my sandstorm team. So my opinion probably isn't going to be much, but...

    Ok, firstly, BP allows a 10% chance to evade. Every 100% attack has a 1/10 chance to miss if you have a BP. Which means 9/10 times, your Pokemon faints, and 1/10 times, your pokemon survives and sweeps.

    Now, that certainly looks good on paper. If you use BP, you have 1/10 chance for it to work, and win, and 9/10 for it to not work, and lose. If you want to take that chance, go ahead and use it.

    Of course, the main issue here (at least, the one the TS is talking about), is combining the 10% chance with Sand Veil / Snow Cloak (which = 28% to evade), combined with a Substitute. It seems good, of course. But here are several snags.

    Let us just say Garchomp. You have 3 chances to Substitute and hope that there is at least 1 miss. From the calculations by Jimbob, that means the opponent has 37.3% to hit, and 62.7% chance to screw up. So, let's say you have indeed 1 miss. That means Chomp gets 1 Swords Dance.

    Now here's the problem. Wouldn't it be more effective to employ, say, SubSalac, and be ensured of getting 1 Swords Dance and a Speed Boost, and maybe even a Sub up? You still have a 20% chance to avoid attacks. So, 1 out of every 5 attacks will miss you. And you get a Speed Boost at the end. Isn't it more worth it?

    Aside from that, you have Choice Band, Choice Scarf, and Life Orb (Chain Chomp) variations. If you use BrightPowder, you can't use any of these variations, and depending on situation, they might be better.

    So, if you use BP Chomp, you can't use CB chomp, Swords Chomp, Chain Chomp, Scarf Chomp, and SubSalac Chomp. They all have their own uses in their own rights. For instance, a SubSalac Chomp might be better if your opponent employs 100% accuracy moves, a Chain Chomp has the surprise potential, the CB Chomp just sweeps without any set-up, and so on. Why ban just one of them?
  7. Shen

    Shen

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    115
    You cannot remove every aspect of luck from this game. There will always be critical hits, lucky paralysis or freeze, or misses at key moments. However, I'm all for removing Brightpowder from the list of usable items; even if the vast majority of the time it doesn't make a difference, it's really only there to pray for hax.

    While I don't have a problem with Garchomp in a sandstorm (more power them for having an actual strategy, or more fool you for setting it up for them) I do have a bit of a problem with him substituting in addition to that. However I'm more inclined to think that this is also a good example of working the odds in your favour, like the Pokemon out there who take advantage of Serene Grace using Paraflinch or similar.

    Without Brightpowder, there's no real need to penalise Garchomp further. Skarmory, Hippowdon and Gliscor can all take two tries at phazing anyway, so it's not that big a deal. If ~80% hit rates are so despicably low, why does Gengar run Focus Blast and Hypnosis, and physical sweepers Stone Edge?

    Edit: Yeah, I remember seeing the Brightpowder on a subbing Garchomp in an RMT and wondered why he hadn't gone for Salac Berry instead. It wasn't till later that I found that this was a typical thing.
  8. Bankai

    Bankai

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Brightpowder is almost identical to Quick claw, yet quick claw is banned.
  9. Jimbo

    Jimbo take me anywhere
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,658
    You missed Frosslass under pokemon affected.

    I think it's an interesting rule. I think Sand Veil + Substitute should be allowed, but Brightpowder makes it a bit excessive in my opinion. Whenever someone uses it against me and gets the hax they wanted they always seem to be full of shame. My question is really why they use it at all, but there's not real fun in using Powder + Weather + Sub...
  10. Amelia

    Amelia

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,851
    Not true. There are no banned items technically, both in Shoddy and Wi-Fi. Even tourneys don't ban them.

    If you think a BrightPowder Chomp is bad, you haven't seen my Baton Pass Taunt Swords Dance Sub Gliscor @ Brightpowder yet.
  11. Boingo

    Boingo

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    Didn't read everything that's been written so far, but my view on this is: Just update Evasion Clause by banning brightpowder. Using brightpowder always seemed like a loophole around evasion clause to me anyway.

    Banning Snow Cloak/Sand Veil pokés (or changing their abilities) would be silly.
  12. Bran

    Bran

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Exactly! Yeah, I would love to see Sandslash and Glaceon banned, because they are just too powerful, lol!
  13. Ambitions

    Ambitions

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,749
    No where in the initial post does it say we should ban poke because of there ability. I'm asking do you feel as thought we should ban there ability to use the combo of brightpowder, substitute, and there ability.
  14. Architect

    Architect

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    That's why we can use "never missing" moves, like Aerial Ace. If you don't trust your own lucky, use them and be happy. I don't agree with this new clause, it's very unfair and it brings us to a way where a "weak" pokémon is a weak and that's all. If it can't use its own strategy, the others will be able to and have an advantage against it.
  15. Bankai

    Bankai

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    Yeah, let's use a 60BP attack that will hardly dent the opposing Pokemon instead of a 100-120BP attack.

    Ofcourse, that's not counting Aura Sphere.

    Edit: I wanted to say something about the low-accuracy moves thing. There's a difference between a low-accuracy move and evasion. When you pick a low-accuracy move, you choose to have a chance of not killing the opponent. You deliberately choose between Stone edge and Rock slide because Rock slide is more accurate or Stone edge is stronger. However, you don't have a choice about the enemy using evasive hax. If you miss with a hypnosis, tough luck, you chose that move. If you miss because of brightpowder, you couldn't do anything about that (except for using shitty non-miss moves).
  16. david stone

    david stone Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,150
    The fact that people are misunderstanding what you have said in nearly every post brings up another issue with rules.

    Rules should be as simple as possible. This is the reason we ban "Mewtwo" and not "Mewtwo with Thunderbolt, Ice Beam, Flamethrower, Aura Sphere, Recover, Focus Punch, Calm Mind, Bulk Up, or Psychic".
  17. Bankai

    Bankai

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    159
    True.

    I say just ban Brightpowder.
  18. Shen

    Shen

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    115
    Jolly No Guard Machamp, 252 Spd / 252 Atk @ Choice Scarf w/ Ice Punch, problem solved! Silliness aside, just removing Brightpowder would be enough. Nullifying a strategy (setting up SS, switching Garchomp in on something that doesn't threaten it, subbing and getting an SD off) seems really unfair.

    I could say something arbitrary like "run a weather changer if it bothers you so much" but that goes against my belief that a team should have an underlying strategy that you should be trying to pull off, rather than a counter only useful in very specific scenarios.
  19. DemonOfSand

    DemonOfSand

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    If I may give me opinion on this, I think this is a silly idea. I use a BrightPowder Garchomp on my SS team, but when someone says "no hax items", or whatever, I don't use it. Just state some specific rules before you battle. Or do that No Guard Machamp@ Choice Scarf thing. It's that simple IMO, but I don't think the items should be banned.

    Bann pokemon cuz of their abilites? Weird and silly.
  20. picklesword

    picklesword

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Does not Choice scarf set the metagame in an unbalanced position to consider it as a possible item? Banning Bright Powder seems dumb as its just for Garchomp. Its like the disscussion of the Latioas twins being OU if they did not have sould dew. Its dumb to think that as the twins already are good. The item is just complementary towards them.
  21. Akayfortyseven

    Akayfortyseven

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,145
    I think some people are to paranoid about how things are 'broken' and 'unfair'. Pokemon always has a large amount of luck-based occurrences, and things were put in the game to be used. I can see justification of the things that are currently banned or claused (sleep, double team, ubers etc) because they are either uncounterable, overpowered or turning the 'luck factor' heavily in the users favour. We are talking about a handful of pokemon with abilities that are not instantly activated, and in fact require another pokemon to be present, or a move to be used. The fact that brightpowder is taking up an item slot which could be something much more useful is reason enough to keep it unbanned.

    Yeah basically whats the point in banning things when people get pissed off? If this gets banned, then other things will soon rise up and then be considered for banning.
  22. Jarizos

    Jarizos

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    46
    Hes not banning sand vial , HES BANNING SUB/POWDER/VIaL TOGATHER
  23. Rhykune

    Rhykune

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    747
    I honestly wouldn't really care, because I use Salac Berry on my Sub-Veil Chomp anyway, and it seems that the opponents miss just as much, and it has a better chance of sweeping.
  24. Bran

    Bran

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Well, it's a strategy, and it's a strategy based on luck. Sometimes you win, sometimes you absolutely fail to the extreme. I don't think a combination of moves and abilities should be banned, because it isn't mindblowing the metagame with this strategy.
  25. CardsOfTheHeart

    CardsOfTheHeart

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,970
    I hope we're all aware of this... but this is too complex a rule to be viable. Even banning Substitute and BrightPowder together could be a problem. It's simple enough to ban BrightPowder and Substitute by themselves, but not those two together, not Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, and especially not all three of them together. I hope Obi's reminder that rules should be as simple as possible is getting through to everyone.

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