Is there any good reason to not finally start testing clauses as planned all along?

[shrang]

I'm not going to oppose testing of Evasion, OHKO and Freeze, since with discussion with Jumpman the other night on #stark, they do limit movesets and stuff and it might not broken as previously thought. However, prepare for people crying about hax if we remove these clauses, since nothing would make people ragequit more than something like Dewgong OHKOing you with Sheer Cold when it was obvious it would have lost otherwise. Freeze has always been hard to implement anyway, and the chances of getting more than one freeze is so unlikely it's probably not worth keeping anyway. I mean come on, if Ice Beam freezes two Pokemon in a row, it was your destiny to lose that match if you do end up losing it.

I won't support removal of Species and Sleep clause though. I think Sleep should be obvious, it is probably the most broken status condition after Freeze (But Freeze is only luck based). Hell, people are complaining about Venusaur sleeping ONE Pokemon in UU at the moment, prepare for hell if we let him sleep more. Species is an interesting case. It's not really broken, per se to have 6 Dragonites on your team or something spamming Draco Meteor, since you just have a team that is 4x weak to ice or whatever. However, I do believe Species clause would make the game really boring. I mean, having 6 of the same Pokemon on the team would just be stale. "Oh I killed him Jirachi, what's he going to send out next?? Another Jirachi?? Oh come on." You get my point.

 

[LonelyNess]

Regardless of the degree to which OHKO / Evasion would actually affect the way we play the game, there is no "positive" outcome from testing them. It doesn't even matter if they're "broken" or not, any affect they would possibly have can only be bad for competitive play (in that it adds another degree of uncertainty to the game). For that reason, I oppose the testing of OHKO / Evasion entirely.

I have no opinion on Species Clause.

 

[Giffca89]

I believe that the OHKO and Evasion Clauses should be tested. It is true that they will increase the amount of luck in individual battles. On the other hand, as has been stated before, skill in Pokemon is determined by how well you do in the long run. Introducing OHKO and evasion moves may actually increase the gap between skilled and unskilled players. As capefeather indicated, the opportunity costs of using these moves instead of more consistent ones tend to be high and will most likely lead to more losses than wins for unskilled players. Conversely, skilled players who are able to make OHKO and evasion moves work better than conventional ones (assuming there are such cases) will be rewarded. For example, Sheer Cold/Surf/Rest/ST (if the 13th movie moves get implemented on Shoddy) or DT/Surf/CM/Rest Suicune may be better for some teams than the standard RestTalk or Crocune sets. The possibility of increasing the competitiveness of the game (again, not in terms of individual battles) makes these clauses worth testing.

I don't really want to test Species Clause, but since it is not obvious that removing it would decrease competitiveness, as well as because we need to prove that having a clause is merited, I think we should.

 

[Theorymon]

while I am personally fine with testing the evasion clause and OHKO clause, Im wondering just how this will be tested since it will effect more than one metagame. Would we just unban it on all the ladders for testing or would it be tested on a seperate ladder for each metagame?

 

[Firestorm]

Regardless of the degree to which OHKO / Evasion would actually affect the way we play the game, there is no "positive" outcome from testing them. It doesn't even matter if they're "broken" or not, any affect they would possibly have can only be bad for competitive play (in that it adds another degree of uncertainty to the game). For that reason, I oppose the testing of OHKO / Evasion entirely.

I have no opinion on Species Clause.

The positive outcome is more options for players to use in their teams. Why are we limiting tactics because we think they're "cheap"? If you're a good player, a bad player isn't going to beat you just due to OHKO and DT.

 

[Erazor]

I'm sure we've all felt, one time or the other, frustration when we lose a game that was practically won, just because Jirachi flinched your pokemon 225789 times and won. Or your opponent got 3 crits in a row. The point being, hax is already a huge element of competitive pokemon. Do we really want to make it worse? For this reason, I oppose the testing of Evasion clause.

On the other hand... I wouldn't mind seeing OHKOs tested. I see them as a high-risk, high-reward sort of strategy. 70% of the time, you've wasted a moveslot. But I can understand the other side of the coin, where you've placed yourself in a great position and it all comes crashing down because Dewgong KOed your Crocune. So, in the end I'd rather not test OHKOs.

 

[Deck Knight]

I have a little bit of a different take on this.

I support testing OHKOs but oppose testing Evasion.

The difference between the two for me boils down to opportunity cost and availability. The opportunity cost to use Double Team is near zero. It provides a chance for all of your opponents moves, be they attack, support, anything but self boosts to fail. The only opportunity cost lost with Double Team is perhaps coverage from another attack. Furthermore, evasion is a universally available strategy. ANY of your opponents Pokemon could be packing Double Team in their moveset, and if a specific pokemon isn't running Double Team itcan still be Baton Passed to them.

Evasion therefore is more destabilizing. ALL Pokemon of ALL types can use it. There is no real downside to using Double Team, as it has plentiful PP to boot.

OHKO's on the other hand are a pure risk-reward calculation. Why do Infernape leads run Fire Blast? Because the reward for the extra Base Power outweighs the 15% chance you will miss. OHKO's are simply taking this risk/reward calculation to the extreme. Why is the player using the Fire Blast Infernape "skilled" where someone using say, Fissure Hippowdon is "relying on luck?" Did the Hippowdon trainer not make the same risk/reward calculation and say "Hippowdon is sufficiently bulky that I will probably get multiple chances to attempt a OHKO, countering opponents my Hippowdon ordinarily wouldn't?" Why do we consider a 15% failure rate "skill" where a 70% failure rate is not?

OHKO's also have extremely poor PP, despite their power. They are fairly easy to stall out if you know what you are doing, and are blocked by Substitute, Protect, and Pokemon with Sturdy. Pokemon with Sturdy are not rare in OU, with Skarmory and Forretress being two prime examples. You could also use Magnezone if you think all you will run into is Shed Shell Skarmory/Forry.

In other words, OHKOs have a huge opportunity cost attached to them. They are far less reliable than staple moves and can be blocked in multiple ways. They are available only to a limited set of Pokemon, some more dangerous than others.

I believe Evasion's characteristics are sufficiently overwhelming that it should not be tested. Universal distribution, small opportunity cost, and the ability to be passed factor into my view.

I believe OHKO's should be tested. They are little more than an extreme risk/reward calculation and can be addressed in multiple ways. The list of users is not unlimited and not all of them have the bulk or typing that would lend itself to effective use of these moves. Those that do often have common weaknesses like Water and Ice, or in the case of Sheer Cold users are almost all weak to Fighting and Rock.

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't see the removal of these clauses doing anything other than adding more potential for games to be ruined by luck.

The removal of these clauses will have a negative effect the metagame. Period.

testing evasion or ohko, which only encourage luck and are detrimental to strategy

there is no "positive" outcome from testing them. It doesn't even matter if they're "broken" or not, any affect they would possibly have can only be bad for competitive play (in that it adds another degree of uncertainty to the game).

You are all willfully ignoring numerous arguments to the contrary. Plenty of other posters are too, but you guys made much more quotable statements and also pretty much focused your entire posts around this misconception.

Yes, when a OHKO or Evasion move is activated, the following turns become more "luck-based" or whatever. Even at this juncture, an argument could be made that this is "just additional probability management, who knows if this is actually less competitive like you so claim?" A lot of people tend to bring up this counterargument, but I'm not (that argument should probably be addressed too though).

The argument that I'm choosing to discuss is that the immediately obvious effects of Evasion/OHKOs are only some tiny portion of a much bigger picture; they don't even come close to actually telling us whether the metagame will be more or less competitive overall. If OHKOs have a direct effect on the viability of stall, that is something that may or may not be an improvement on the metagame as a whole. If Evasion moves set off some chain of events that result in a more balanced metagame, you can't just brush that aside and point out how annoying it is that you missed Suicune three times in a row one time--all that means is that you are annoyed by Double Team when it is used, not that the game as a whole has become any less competitive. Firestorm also has a very valid point in that most of us don't even think OHKOs/Evasion are terribly effective strategies, meaning that the skill gap could potentially be widened by poor players picking up these moves and predictably failing with them. There are tons of possible improvements that these moves could have on the competitive aspect of Pokemon. Please stop pretending that there aren't, or at least address the people who repeatedly say otherwise.

 

[Aldaron]

1.) Evasion clause / ohko clause are the status quo

2.) it is the responsibility of the people who want to change the status quo to convince those who don't want to change that change will be beneficial

3.) after observing this topic for a while, the sides seem to boil down to this: people who hardly play competitively, openly, and well (besides reachzero and maybe 1 other) and people who play competitively, openly, and well. The latter is the side advocating no test of the clauses, the former advocating testing.

4.) the "don't test" side mostly doesn't care about the actual degree of effect evasion / ohko clauses have. let me repeat what this means. the "don't test" side doesn't necessarily think evasion / ohko will be "broken" (whatever that means). it wants to ban them because it feels those two bring only an added measure of probability management to the table, and it doesn't want to change the status quo for that.

To summarize: most good players don't think it is worth changing the status quo to add strategies that only contribute to the probability management side of the game.

so all you people making huge posts about advocating these tests, please respond to THAT.

YOU have to convince US either that a.) evasion / ohko don't significantly add to probability management (as in there are other strategies) OR b.) that our insistence to remove something for additional probability management isn't a valid argument.

Note that should you go the route a way, it isn't good enough to say you simply said it here and there and wherever. it is on YOU to convince US. consolidate your posts, make them concise and clear, and show us how the probability management addition is insignificant compared to the "skill" type addition it might add.

Note that should you go the route b way, you actually have to convince us of that.

 

[Scofield]

as an active player who plays extremely frequently, I concur with aeolus (although I'd like to add that I don't think species clause should be tested for the heavy dependence on team match ups as reachzero posted) and aldaron. I have absolutely no interest in testing these clauses. If a suspect ladder were put up for these tests, I would not play at all, and I have played in every single suspect stage up until this point.

 

[Giffca89]

YOU have to convince US either that a.) evasion / ohko don't significantly add to probability management (as in there are other strategies) OR b.) that our insistence to remove something for additional probability management isn't a valid argument.

In the "We're old enough to not necessarily believe in any old Clause, right?" thread, Reflect Suicune, obi, and Jumpman explain that the burden of proof lies with the clause supporters. They say it much better than I can, so I'm going to quote them:

The burden of proof lies with the supporters of the clauses. It does not matter that you feel the game does not benefit from the addition of Double Team or Fissure. A more relevant opinion would be that the game benefits from the removal of Double Team or Fissure - an opinion a wholeheartedly disagree with. Furthermore, even if someone were to muster up a valid argument in favor of evasion clause, I do not see any possibility for a valid argument in favor of not at least testing the two aforementioned clauses. Essentially we are here to determine whether or not moves like Double Team are "uber". We have taken the "innocent until proven guilty" approach up until this point, and I see neither rhyme nor reason in reversing this precedent now. As such, any argument that stems from the fact that "the game is just fine without x" is not at all appropriate.

The validation comes from the fact that "we" banned them in the first place. We are not (in the case of a suspect test in its favor) "adding" evasion and OHKO moves to the metagame, we are restoring them, and I cannot stress this point enough. It is very easily argued that Pokemon can already be a chore, and that matches are already very easily swayed by other annoying characteristics, including, but not limited to, Sand Veil, Critical Hits, the 10% side effects of Ice Beam, Flamethrower, and Thunderbolt, etc...

This misconception that "we don't have enough of a reason to unban OHKOs and evasion" has no validity to it at all. As I, and others, have stated several times. The real issue at hand, or for neutrality's sake, the potential issue at hand, is that "We do not have enough of a reason to continue banning OHKOs and evasion".

No one has to prove why something should be allowed; you have to prove why it's banned.

This leads me to ask a question: which side will have the burden of proof?

In a Pokemon suspect test, we assume that a Pokemon is OU unless proven Uber, and the burden of proof is on the Uber camp. So what do we assume here? That a Clause is good unless it is proven to be unfair/unnecessary (ie: OHKO Clause is removed because it is unnecessary)? Or that we need to prove that a Clause is necessary for the proper functioning of the metagame in order for the Clause to be implemented (ie: Evasion moves break the metagame)? Judging from the comments, I'm assuming its the latter, but I think that this should be decided as a way to help potential voters make their choices.

It's definitely the latter, since every clause is by definition added on to the existing framework of the game, which includes all the pokemon and all the moves they can learn.[/QUOTE]

 

[Aldaron]

Giffca89, aren't those simply opinions? Can't I say "while they bring up good points, I disagree."

But ok, let's say I, for a moment, agree with that the burden of proof is on us (even though in practical terms that's ridiculous as clearly emphasized by the very large player vs. non player split here).

Our justification for not restoring is that we don't want to add the further level of probability management.

Can you refute this as an argument? Remember, these debates aren't purely idealistic. It isn't important to only state your side; you need to convince the other side as well. The reason I'm emphasizing this for the "advocate testing" side is because of the very obvious active player vs. non-player split here; if the majority of good active players don't want to test it, doesn't the burden of proof actually shift to the side that wants to test it?

Even assuming that R_S, Obi, Jumpman16 are right and in the perfect, ideal world the burden of proof is on us, is that practical? Pokemon isn't played in a vacuum. It's played by players who want to play something they WANT to play. I'm very literally saying the burden of proof is on your side because it seems clear to me that the majority of active good players DO NOT want to test these.

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

Aldaron, your 'burden of proof' argument is confusing. If what you meant is 'burden of theorymon', then Blame Game's already provided that argument quite adequately. The statement "We don't know what will happen if these clauses are removed" holds up a hell of a lot better than "We know the effect this will have on the metagame even though we have zero experience with these moves in a real competitive environment."

The only way to actually obtain proof would be to test these clauses. So, if I understand you correctly, we shouldn't test these clauses until we have proof that removing them could have positive effects, and we can't prove that without testing them. Isn't that the very definition of a Catch 22?

 

[Aldaron]

Why are you assuming it is easy to test? Testing involves time and effort.

To test, you need to prove it is worthwhile to test.

And that's what I mean by my arguments...because most of the good, active players don't think it is worthwhile to even test (we don't care about the magnitude of significance evasion / ohko would have), you need to somehow prove to us that it is worthwhile to test.

Convincing us with theorymon might be a possible route to take.

 

[lilyhollow]

2.) it is the responsibility of the people who want to change the status quo to convince those who don't want to change that change will be beneficial

Did anybody actually think that unbanning, say, Latios would benefit the metagame itself? I kind of doubt that. I think it went more like, "there is reason to believe that Latios would not be broken in the OU metagame, and who knows, maybe it could even improve it. Also, the ruleset would become simpler with it unbanned, and that's an improvement too." This is totally in line with everything that is being suggested here regarding Evasion and OHKOs, so I think we're fine here. In fact, we're probably better off here than we were with most of our past suspects, since people were actually afraid of Lati@s/Manaphy/whatever becoming broken, not mere "annoyances."

4.) the "don't test" side mostly doesn't care about the actual degree of effect evasion / ohko clauses have. let me repeat what this means. the "don't test" side doesn't necessarily think evasion / ohko will be "broken" (whatever that means). it wants to ban them because it feels those two bring only an added measure of probability management to the table, and it doesn't want to change the status quo for that.

Yes, and this argument is horrible, as I've tried to explain twice now. Kind of concerning that "all of our good players" are falling into the trap of believing this misconception, but that piece of information seems kind of irrelevant to this argument otherwise. I mean, yep, they're good players? Sucks that they haven't put together a coherent argument then?

YOU have to convince US

Wait, what? I mean, TheMaskedNitpicker and Giffca already explained why this doesn't make sense I guess. I just want to also throw in there that it is crazy and out of nowhere.

OR b.) that our insistence to remove something for additional probability management isn't a valid argument.

Yeah, like I've said repeatedly, it isn't. If additional probability management is the cost (why call it a "cost" when nobody has even asserted that it is inherently negative, oh well) of a more balanced, or otherwise more competitive metagame, obviously it has been justified.

consolidate your posts, make them concise and clear, and show us how the probability management addition is insignificant compared to the "skill" type addition it might add.

Are you joking?

First of all, your burden of proof argument doesn't even make sense in the first place. The rest of this response is totally optional, because everything else you've said is covered by the fact that your burden of proof argument has no place here.

Anyway, there is an entire thread of discussion where people shoot off a few potentially skill-based advantages to allowing Evasion and OHKOs. Many of those points were repeated in this thread, and were once more repeated in the form of me bitching about people ignoring them. The fact that you continue to ignore them and instead choose to make demands that we present them, again, seems to be some sort of calculated attack on my sanity. Anyway, yeah, nobody is going to "consolidate our posts," and edit them for your reading pleasure or whatever. Just read posts by Firestorm, or me, or whoever, and maybe go back to the other Clause thread that has also been referenced numerous times. And please forget about this "burden of proof is on us" stuff.

Why are you assuming it is easy to test? Testing involves time and effort.

To test, you need to prove it is worthwhile to test.

Yes, and we have done that, as I explained at the beginning of this post. Basically, your view of what it takes for this community to determine something "test-worthy" is inconsistent with how things have been running for years now. The way it works is: if there is reason to believe that the bans are not needed, then we test. You can make the argument that we also need reason to believe that some sort of improvement to the metagame could occur as well--this condition has also been fulfilled. We have never needed "reason to believe that, most likely, the metagame will be decisively improved by removing this ban. Also, here is a list of those probable improvements for your reading pleasure."

 

[whistle]

gonna ignore the burden of proof argument for now cause it's not very relevant to what I have to say...

re: OHKO and Evasion. I fully agree that increasing the amount of "probability management" aka luck is not something that should happen in a competitive environment. You are probably all familiar with the argument so I'll just say "look at Aeolus' post" instead of badly paraphrasing his post.

There are a few counter-arguments that I'd like to address, though:

1. "Probability management" increases skill because players have to weigh the risks and rewards of using these moves, and more skilled players should be more adept at this.

While it is true that players have control over OHKO and Evasion moves - such as what Pokemon to run them on, what other three moves to use on the Pokemon, and when to use them in battle - this does not mean these moves are dependent on skill more than luck. Players can use rough percentages and judgment calls on battles to determine how they use the moves, but in the end, whether that OHKO move hits Suicune is determined solely based on the RNG.

The situation is the same as with using percentages to evaluate Jirachi's Iron Head (60% flinch) or Heatran's Fire Blast (15% miss). More skilled players will, in the long run, be able to more effectively calculate the risks and rewards to using each of these moves in a given situation. These all have theorymonable possibilities - if you have a constrained system of some sort (like one turn left and two possible moves) then you can, using probabilities of each effect, figure out the "best" move. But the actual execution of the move on Shoddy Battle brings chance effects to the table and those mean your 80% win condition can become 0% through no fault of your own. That is where increasing the game's dependence on chance effects decreases skill.

Example that isn't completely necessary but might help

Let's say Player A has a 10% Leftovers Jirachi with Reflect active facing Player B's Swampert who will faint in two turns due to Toxic damage; Player A has one more Pokemon (67% SD Lucario) who is needed to deal with Player B's last Pokemon (2% Specs Jolteon). In this situation the Jirachi player can either Iron Head Swampert and hope for a flinch, in which case he wins (60% chance), or he can switch to Lucario and hope to survive Earthquake, which deals 56.2% - 66.9% with Reflect. If Earthquake deals less than 57%, which is a very small chance, Player A wins since Lucario can OHKO both remaining Pokemon. If Earthquake deals more than 57%, the game comes down to a guessing game (namely, whether Player A will switch back to Jirachi to sacrifice it while Swampert dies of Toxic damage and win with Lucario's Bullet Punch, or whether Player B will predict that and double switch to Jolteon, winning him the match). Let's say the guessing game is a 50/50 chance (it was an unintended consequence of how I constructed the scenario). Player A's choices are: (a) Iron Head, 60% win (b) switch, 50% + verysmall% win. Purely mathematically, his best chance of winning is to Iron Head, but there is a pretty big chance that he will lose even though he made the right move.

The common counter-argument to this is that probability is not picky - in the extremely long run, everything will balance out and your level of hax will reach its expected value. Except... this isn't the stock market or a casino. Reaching our expected value for win conditions is not the point here. With the underlying assumption that the player who plays the best (i.e. makes the "best" moves) deserves the win, the optimal outcome is for every single game to have zero deviation from its expected outcome. The long run is essentially irrelevant for most competitive players due to unequal weighting of games... who cares if you miss Stone Edge nine times against LadderNoob7086 if "in return" Philip7086 misses Draco Meteor against you in the finals of an OU tour? Effective (read: competitive) probability management requires equal weighting of all games, which is simply not the case.

2. We don't know what the impact removing these clauses will have, so we should test them to be sure.

The first thought that comes to mind when I read these posts (Blame Game's, mostly) is... how do you measure the impact on the game? This is primarily a framework issue. Increasing the availability of strategies dependent on luck impacts the game in a manner that should be evaluated a priori to how they change the metagame (whether for better of for worse). The very presence of OHKO and Evasion moves is damaging to the competitive nature of the game because luck means the most "deserving" player won't always win (see the last part of #1); it doesn't matter whether we like Lapras or whether we hate stall or even whether their usages go up or down as a result.

This brings me to the question raised by Earthworm. Do we only ban things that are broken, or do we ban everything that is detrimental to the game? I think we should ban things that are detrimental to the game, which is the practical approach - take the path that produces the game that is the most competitive and the most fun to play. Essentially, this:

In either case, whether the impact is small or large, we have found out nothing new. All we've seen is that the game is more influenced by luck that it was before which is obvious from the outset. I propose on purely philosophical grounds that such an effect is undesirable and shouldn't even be considered for a game that is meant to be a competitive endeavor.

re: Species. Blame Game summarized my thoughts perfectly... it would be fun, but "really?".

Broken or not, a Species clause-less metagame would be a completely different animal than the one we're currently dealing with. I really cannot express how crazy I think it would be for us to seriously test it, but I also am not even remotely worried that it will actually be taken "seriously" in any way. We'll have a fun little sandbox to play in for a while, but ultimately it'll be disregarded as a pretty significant waste of time.

 

[lilyhollow]

The first thought that comes to mind when I read these posts (Blame Game's, mostly) is... how do you measure the impact on the game? This is primarily a framework issue. Increasing the availability of strategies dependent on luck impacts the game in a manner that should be evaluated a priori to how they change the metagame (whether for better of for worse).

The definition of Suspect is "Any Pokémon, move or clause that respectively may benefit competitive standard or uber battle if moved or implemented elsewhere."

You're correct in saying that it would be difficult to evaluate whether or not Evasion and OHKOs would actually improve the metagame. For all we know, OHKOs could cause some sort of obscure chain reaction that makes the metagame less balanced overall, in addition to the "luck factors" that everyone is already well-aware of. But my point is that there is distinct potential for those moves to improve the metagame just as much, and according to both Jumpman's definition and many if not most of our past Suspect decisions, that's enough to justify a test. The fact that we're certain that Evasion/OHKO increases probability management (assuming for a moment that I agree with you that that is something we definitely dislike) doesn't discount any of that at all.

 

[whistle]

Where are you getting "improve the metagame" from that definition? Whether or not these moves have an impact on the metagame (types of Pokemon used, team styles used, pace of matches, etc) is largely immaterial; if they can be used period, that increases luck factors and makes the game less desirable to play. Yeah, there is the argument that good players won't use them in battles that matter... but why even bother with the chance? As Aeolus said, from the point of view of players of a competitive game, this is a philosophical objection to the moves' effects.

It might help a little if you could outline a scenario for how unbanning these moves would make the game more attractive to play or more competitive, since I can't really think of a way.

 

[lilyhollow]

It might help a little if you could outline a scenario for how unbanning these moves would make the game more attractive to play or more competitive, since I can't really think of a way.

I've pointed out "improved balance" on multiple occasions. Like say Lapras improves, which is already arguably an improvement in balance by itself. And then Lapras being better makes people less likely to use Heatran for whatever reason, and Heatran being used less means underused Pokemon X Y and Z all get little boosts, and so on and so on. This could result in a more competitive metagame, or it could not; that is difficult to measure, but the fact of the matter is that it fits the definition of a Suspect (a definition that I've always considered too strict, if anything).



Anyway, this has been said before but I'd just like to reiterate it: I am not all that concerned with the state of Gen 4 Pokemon itself anymore. What I'm really concerned about is Gen 5, and I've already thrown my hat in for the "keep a stable metagame/minimize testing in Gen 5" crowd, so whether it starts off banned or not, I'd rather avoid testing it once we actually have our hands on a proper sim of the game. I also think that grandfathering in an outdated ruleset is a bad idea. So basically, I do not care what happens in Gen 4, as long as we start off Gen 5 with Evasion/OHKO unbanned and keep it that way (barring exceptional circumstances).

I'm bringing this up because an argument that now seems to be surfacing in the IRC is "we shouldn't be wasting our resources on that right now, we have better things to do." Well, okay, I totally understand if you just don't want to waste time on a test at this juncture. If that's the case, just know that I (and I think Firestorm too from what I have read of his posts? maybe others too?) have no reason to support an Evasion/OHKO test, as long as they are unbanned for Gen 5.

 

[Firestorm]

Yes, I really do not have much stake in what is done about it right now. I just do not want OHKO / Evasion Clause grandfathered into Generation 5. I know that at the beginning of Generation 4 there was already a bit of concern over keeping it, but it was pushed aside.

 

[Jumpman16]

Perhaps the wording of my final sentence left something smooth to be desired, so allow me to be more clear. Any post that serves only to agree with a previous poster's stance is absolutely worthless for the purposes of answer the topic title's question and the question I posited at the end of my OP: "if not, why".

I understand both that Aeolus was extremely thorough in his explanation and that you would doubtless be repeating some of what he's said if you agree. Your opinion, however, is very literally worthless to us if you cannot indicate that you actually have one of your own in your own words, however few or seemingly "repetitive".

 

[Aeolus]

Given that the purpose of this thread is to canvass the opinion of the public, I do not see any reason why you shouldn't endorse a previous post if it articulates your feelings. However, your additional insights and contributions would certainly be appreciated since it seems pretty unlikely that someone else could perfectly communicate your thoughts.

 

[Jackal]

Before I articulate my opinion I want to outline where exactly my viewpoint is coming from: the tournament perspective.

I value Pokemon as a competitive game, and tournaments are the lifeblood of this "competition". You can look at the ladder all you want, you can look at a "balanced metagame" all you want, but when you are talking about a competitive game, you need to keep in mind how something will effect a single instance of this game, in this case a competitive tournament match.

In a tournament match, the goal is not to play out the product of a "balanced metagame" and the goal is not to have the most amount of things useable as possible. The goal is to defeat your opponent. People take this goal very seriously, and it really is (should be) the reason we play this game.

Given the seriousness with which we treat this goal, we should always want the control to be in the hands of the user as much as possible. Pokemon is an interesting game when you compare it to something like chess because there are luck factors involved. With that said, we still want to maximize the amout of skill it takes to win at all costs, in order to preserve the integrity of a "competitive game".

You of course can see where this leads us... I don't care about the "big picture" effects that any of these clauses could create. I am merely interested in the impact a change would have on a single instance of the game. Anything that takes the skill out of a better players hand and gives a weaker player an option that would not normally be present should not be allowed in a competitive game and there is absolutely, under no circumstance any argument to the opposition if you want to keep calling this game "competitive".

It is key to distinguish between stuff like this and a critical hit, a miss or other such "hax" because none of those things are strategies in themselves that can be employed in lieu of just battling. (The exception is obviously parahax teams but I am also seriously against these but lets not go there).

Imagine if the finals of a major tournament was decided by one of the two parties using Horn Drill. Could we really call this a competitive game? We might as well be playing roulette.

Basically the tl;dr of this post is that when analyzing clauses like this it is irrelevant how adding/removing them would effect the metagame "on the whole" but is entirely relevant how adding/removing them would effect a single game. If even one game is made worse by it (worse defined as taking the skill out of a better players hand and giving an opportunity to a less skilled player that would normally not present itself) then it has no business being a part of a competitive game.

 

[Deck Knight]

It is key to distinguish between stuff like this and a critical hit, a miss or other such "hax" because none of those things are strategies in themselves that can be employed in lieu of just battling. (The exception is obviously parahax teams but I am also seriously against these but lets not go there).

Imagine if the finals of a major tournament was decided by one of the two parties using Horn Drill. Could we really call this a competitive game? We might as well be playing roulette.

Basically the tl;dr of this post is that when analyzing clauses like this it is irrelevant how adding/removing them would effect the metagame "on the whole" but is entirely relevant how adding/removing them would effect a single game. If even one game is made worse by it (worse defined as taking the skill out of a better players hand and giving an opportunity to a less skilled player that would normally not present itself) then it has no business being a part of a competitive game.

Even under your definition, how is it "taking skill out" if one player uses a strategy available to both players? Is using OHKO's for example categorically an indication of less skill?

If I were for example to use a Substitute/Sheer Cold Lapras, haven't I made the calculation that my Lapras will be able to successfully come into Blissey, set up a Sub, and prepare to snipe? Why is my strategy "luck-based?" Why would a single game be made worse because of my entirely logical decision to exploit a common Pokemon in the metagame's inability to break my Substitute, thereby allowing me a chance to threaten their whole team? SD Garchomp was a less extreme example of this where once set up it provided a substantial threat to almost everything.

If someone else were to use such a Lapras, they could trump me by being faster and setting up their own Sub, which I would probably try to address with Thunderbolt. If I'm using Thunderbolt I can't be setting up Sub or trying Sheer Cold, so they get a chance to switch into something threatening.

In fact if I've read Sheer Cold's Movedex description accurately it would ignore evasion modifiers from Double Team users, making it 30% likely to hit regardless.

Now again I only support testing OHKO's for because OHKOs are an active strategy. If you are using OHKO's you must build the Pokemon around them, since if you don't you have usually wasted a slot at least one of your opponent's Pokemon is immune to. I suppose you could just throw it on a Pokemon that doesn't need a 4th move or sufficiently covers Sturdy Pokemon, but even then why is that "relying on luck" rather than "skill?" OHKO is the effect of the move, in exchange for deplorable and unalterable accuracy. "Player A: You only won because your Horn Drill hit 3 times! Player B: Oh yeah? Well your Fire Blast burn nerfed my Swampert and they both had the same chance of happening! Player A: Yeah but... you used hax, n00b!"

The allowance of OHKO's would be a globally announced change so people would have to adapt to it in their teambuilding structure. It would probably lend itself away from Stall (which still has Skarmory and Forry who are immune to the moves) and more towards offense, it turn making OHKO's less reliable than more consistent moves.

Ultimately I don't see OHKO's as "playing roulette." They have sufficiently common countermeasures (Substitute, Protect/Detect, Sturdy, type immunity) that while they are threatening, it's no more "roulette" than the 10% chance you got a burn on Fire Blast to win a match.

Like I said before I consider Evasion differently that OHKOs, and don't think it should be casually referred to as Evasion / OHKO. They are not two halves of the same coin. Part of that is evasion is a passive strategy. You can throw Double Team on pretty much anything. Double Team synergizes extremely well with other moves, especially Substitute/Focus Punch and Baton Pas. It's universally available, only blockable through Taunt (which is affected by Evasion modifiers), and reduces the effectiveness of all other strategies.

 

[X-Act]

Evasion is not only blockable through Taunt, Deck Knight. Actually Taunt is not a very good way to block DTs, as it can fail. However, I'd say Evasion has actually many more ways to circumvent it than OHKO moves.

• Perish Song hits for 100% accuracy and forces the DTer to switch. Baton Passing would carry on the Perish Song to the receiver, so it's useless.
• Yawn hits for 100% accuracy and put the DTer to sleep the next turn. (Baton Pass removes its effect though.)
• Haze ignores evasion modifiers as from DP. Cool, huh?
• Aura Sphere is reasonably powerful and ignores evasion.
• Psych Up: You want to evade? I'll join in the fun, thanks.
• Foresight/Miracle Eye/Odor Sleuth work with 100% accuracy.
• Pain Split works with 100% accuracy.
• Curse from Ghosts is a bit risky, but it's also an option.

Of course, the above are little-used, if at all, but that's exactly because evasion is banned. If we were to ban entry hazards, nobody would use Rapid Spin anymore, the overuse of Pokemon resistant to Stealth Rock would be lessened, and people wouldn't factor in Stealth Rock damage in their damage calcs. A ban always changes the metagame.

I agree that you can throw Double Team into most anything, but Double Team is actually only effective in only a few select Pokemon.

If anything, Evasion is not akin to Critical Hits, because you can prevent your opponent from using Evasion moves, but you cannot prevent Critical Hits except by using Pokemon having Shell Armor/Battle Armor, which usually are either Pokemon that have a better ability or that just plain suck. Or by employing lol Lucky Chant.

This is not advocating that we test Evasion... I've already expressed my views on that matter. This is just so that I attempt to show that evasion is not as uncounterable as it seems.