The hax clause: on one turn per match where a player experienced "hax", the turn is redone exactly as it was but without the hax.
Now you may instantly think " way we must play the game as it is given" but think about what we have been doing all these years. The recent complex bans like the banning of moody and the drizzle w/ swift swim bans were examples of us making minor changes to fix the game we were given. Competitive battling is supposed to be about skill, which is why we ban mindless and broken strategies and pokemon that equalize the playing field between players of different skill levels. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a 1450+ rating just to be haxed down 300 points, having certain victories robbed by critical hit priority. Yes hax is part of the game, which is why my solution isn't to change the mechanics so hax can't happen. It is important to have random chance as it is a vital part of what gives pokemon it's character. What I propose is a test where my "hax clause" is in effect.
For example, I have dual screens up and a +3 +3 scrafty. My opponent sends in scizor and crits me with bullet punch. Similar to a coach's challenge in a sports play, I can then redo the turn under the same circumstances. I have to attack as I was going to and my opponent must bullet punch with scizor. The turn is done over again until no hax occurs. This of course also applies to the hax of the player using the "challenge". If I crit on a redo, the turn is redone again until neither player gets hax. Again, this can only be done once a game and the result of the challenge is a haxless turn. One could not for example redo a turn where stone edge misses and then get a turn where it gets a critical.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The definition of hax as it applies to the clause (more explanation given as needed):
critical hits: One could challenge any sort of crit, though challenging a useless one would be pointless. Just imagine the satisfaction you will feel the next time your opponent erroneously insists that a crit did or didn't matter just to have it blown up in their face. For example, You get a pointless crit. They then challenge it and their negligence of calculations will have cost them their challenge. The satisfaction of having their stupidity boldly highlighted will no doubt make up for the slight inconvenience.
Flinches with chances under 50%: No jirachi finches are not really hax
status afflictions under 50%:
Misses of moves with accuracy equal to or greater than 85%: Sorry, stone edge will be as risky as ever, that has become an iconic part of the game.
Status drops with chances under 50%:
Being fully paralyzed:
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Once again, a player can only challenge one turn per match. The purpose of this being to ensure that a player gets a victory that they have earned through superior strategy. This will in no way eliminate the effects of hax on the game, just put an end to "hax for the loss" turns. Isn't it time we did something to ensure that strategy truly does win out over pure luck?
Now you may instantly think " way we must play the game as it is given" but think about what we have been doing all these years. The recent complex bans like the banning of moody and the drizzle w/ swift swim bans were examples of us making minor changes to fix the game we were given. Competitive battling is supposed to be about skill, which is why we ban mindless and broken strategies and pokemon that equalize the playing field between players of different skill levels. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a 1450+ rating just to be haxed down 300 points, having certain victories robbed by critical hit priority. Yes hax is part of the game, which is why my solution isn't to change the mechanics so hax can't happen. It is important to have random chance as it is a vital part of what gives pokemon it's character. What I propose is a test where my "hax clause" is in effect.
For example, I have dual screens up and a +3 +3 scrafty. My opponent sends in scizor and crits me with bullet punch. Similar to a coach's challenge in a sports play, I can then redo the turn under the same circumstances. I have to attack as I was going to and my opponent must bullet punch with scizor. The turn is done over again until no hax occurs. This of course also applies to the hax of the player using the "challenge". If I crit on a redo, the turn is redone again until neither player gets hax. Again, this can only be done once a game and the result of the challenge is a haxless turn. One could not for example redo a turn where stone edge misses and then get a turn where it gets a critical.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
The definition of hax as it applies to the clause (more explanation given as needed):
critical hits: One could challenge any sort of crit, though challenging a useless one would be pointless. Just imagine the satisfaction you will feel the next time your opponent erroneously insists that a crit did or didn't matter just to have it blown up in their face. For example, You get a pointless crit. They then challenge it and their negligence of calculations will have cost them their challenge. The satisfaction of having their stupidity boldly highlighted will no doubt make up for the slight inconvenience.
Flinches with chances under 50%: No jirachi finches are not really hax
status afflictions under 50%:
Misses of moves with accuracy equal to or greater than 85%: Sorry, stone edge will be as risky as ever, that has become an iconic part of the game.
Status drops with chances under 50%:
Being fully paralyzed:
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Once again, a player can only challenge one turn per match. The purpose of this being to ensure that a player gets a victory that they have earned through superior strategy. This will in no way eliminate the effects of hax on the game, just put an end to "hax for the loss" turns. Isn't it time we did something to ensure that strategy truly does win out over pure luck?
