In every era of competitive Pokemon I've witnessed, the number one complaint of nearly every great player in their prime has related to the amount of luck in the game. It's not something we're ever going to remove completely - it's far too entwined in the game we play - but it's something we can limit with policy, and these two clauses are perhaps the simplest ways to do that. Both clauses are composed of moves that are heavily RNG based and have no other effects that earn them a place in the metagame(like, say, Ice-type attacks and RBY freeze), so it is simple to keep them out of the equation to satisify those elite player types and keep the "better" player winning as much as possible. As such, it's not terribly surprising that the divide among users in this topic is largely splitting the people who take the game less seriously and play more casually, if at all anymore(who don't seem to mind these clauses/think it might be some refreshing fun) vs. the people who do play our more competitively inclined, officially supported metagames, who largely fit the scenario I described in my opening.
When you are putting the amount of effort into practice and team creation that is necessary to be truly competitive on our biggest stages here at Smogon, nothing is more frustrating than losing because of luck. I'll be the first to admit many players bring it upon themselves by rolling the dice too many times, but most of us have a very love/hate relationship with this game because there already a huge amount of dicerolls in this game. The first lesson players learn once they start getting better is that sometimes no matter how well you play - how good your predictions are, or how well you maximize your odds - the improbable will happen. It's just a fact of this game we play - there are so many matches and so many dicerolls that weird stuff will happen sometimes, often in important tournament matches and in other important and embarassing situations.
It is the job of the players to put themselves in as good of a position as possible, but there's some amount of help we can and should give them as rulemakers. We've made it pretty clear we think our job here is to make the most competitive game possible, rather than trying to stick to allowing the maximum options - that's why we banned Salamence, Garchomp, the Lati@s, and Manaphy, and why we have an Uber clause at all in these days of Ubers finally having a real metagame of its own. It'd be awfully inconsistant of us, and frankly irresponsible of us, to then introduce an element that inherently makes the game less competitive by taking more power out of the players' hands and putting it into the cold, digital hands of the RNG.
In regards to the main issue of whether or not we should test, there's a huge impracticality in this divide among posters. I suspect that the rather overwhelming opposition by "people who actually play the game competitively" is a good sign that testing would be futile, were it to come about. Let's be realistic, no one will start playing on suspect and discover "oh WOW, I only lost 2 games every 10 I should have won instead of 3, this is MUCH better than I thought!" These same people saying they don't want to test are going to be the people who have the credentials that earn them a spot on the council, or at worst, suspect voting rights, were we to take a step back. What value would the uproar then have?
I feel somewhat guilty encouraging that there not be a test here, since unlike many of the posters before me I was around when the testing order was decided and I just figured I'd deal with it later(though like many others, I may have opened my mouth if I'd known just how much later that later was going to be). However, I'm really not sure what benefit we will gain from doing the test, and I certainly see detriments - I think there's a very noticable and undesirable lack of permanence and legitimacy in a metagame while it is being tested, and after years of tests in Gen 4, I think it is time to let it finally be what it is until it is supplanted by Gen 5. If there is some overwhelming need to test it either now or later I'd rather get it out of the way now, but considering the type of players who will play(and have played in the previous tests) enough, and well enough, to be voting on these clauses when the time would come, I can't imagine there's a whole lot of benefit to bothering with this. I think it's probably time to just let things be.
Sorry, Jump.
I can't quote properly because I'm writing on my phone at work and pre-typed the post in my word processor so bare with me on the replies and typos/spelling errors/etc. until I get home, please.
Firestorm - Two things about the VGC reference:
I do not think I can emphasize enough how different the doubles and singles metagames are, and as such, how strategies and rules that are good/bad/broken in one are often not at all so in the other. Plagues in singles like Stealth Rock and Outrage are subpar to awful in VGC, and as such I'd say this is an extremely faulty comparison. It is interesting that you post this after using DT + Psych Up in VGC yourself, though. I guess managing to lose so frequently with it is a good way to support your point... perhaps if you were to counteract that by winning under standard rules you'd really show us how that shitty Double Team was the difference!
Point 2 being that I seem to recall that, in spite of both Evasion and OHKOs being weaker in doubles than singles, I seem to recall Japan's National VGC champ rocking a resttalk Sheer Cold Suicune. Can you imagine the uproar if that were to happen in one of our big annuals like the Smogon Tournament or the Tour finals or whatever? Even when it is at its weakest it is gamebreaking.
I realize I'm being unnecessarily abrasive here, but I think even doing so on purpose I didn't quite catch up to the opening line of your first post. I'll do better next time, I promise.
Deck Knight - I enjoy the part of your post that mentions the Lapras/Blissey anecdote, because I think it does bring up a good point in that there certainly are intelligent ways to use OHKOs - it's not like I'd just expect teams of 6 scarfed OHKO users, or whatever. The problem to me comes on the other side of the field - the opponent has already made a mistake by giving Lapras a free switch, but the options s/he now has are a little too limited.
Hopefully s/he switched immediately unless it's running something silly to counter this type of set, like Sub or Toxic and pray or something, but let's assume it's a standard Blissey for the sake of theorymon. The odds are horribly against it if it stays in, so what does it switch to?
Well, it knows Sheer Cold is coming eventually, so how about Sturdy?
Only a small amount of Pokemon even have it, which almost necessitates overcentralization in itself, and the problem is made even worse by the fact they're all basically three types. Lapras, Articuno, and Suicune are all going to beat up Ground/Rock sturdy mons easily, while Steel Sturdy mons are going to either have to try to survive without Leftovers against these guys, who can use more conventional special attacks awfully well, or risk being crushed by the Magnezone you can expect OHKO oriented teams to carry. Even ADV OU throwback Dugtrio could do a lot of damage in support of these teams, since even if it doesn't get the KO it shouldn't have any trouble making sure it knocks shit down low enough for his buddies to finish it off and remove the OHKO absorber from the field - that is, assuming your opponent isn't using something stupid like Donphan that has Sturdy but can't actually fight any of these Pokemon anyway.
Point is, there are always going to be a decent amount of opportunities to slide those OHKO users in, and then the other side of the field has to play the odds and hope a few times. OHKOs are just flat out going to work sometimes - they're incredibly at odds with the general flow of play, normally revolving around type differences and switching and predicting incoming mons... there's not enough prediction in just dealing up another hand and hoping for that blackjack. That, to me, is the difference between Sheer Cold Lapras(less so Fissure Hippowdon, who is ever so slightly less absurd because I can use Levitate/Birds) and Fire Blast Infernape - I can feasibly predict Fire Blast like any other move and let my Suicune laugh off the damage. If you'd Earthquaked with HIppo I'd be able to laugh that off too, but with Fissure there's that 30% you just killed your "counter", even though conventional mons would say I just made a good switch. That isn't a healthy change, to me - the idea of a hard counter is dying, but the game doesn't work when it's completely dead.
Writing this reply makes me think of times I've sprung resttalk Sheer Cold Lapras and DT Sub Sheer Cold Articuno on unsuspecting players who clicked the clauses incorrectly, though. Hehe... sometimes luck is fun. Though there isn't much satisfying about winning with that sort of thing, either.
As an addendum in response to a more recent post, I don't think OHKOs being available to both players really changes the skill argument, which is based on the person who clicks the right button more often winning rather the person who wins RNG slots coming out on top. I think if the metagame were to ever get to the point where, even if it were somehow the best move for both of them, two skilled players were firing off OHKOs on both sides of the field in a big event we'd have failed in this role we seem to have adopted as guardians of the metagame. There's not much competitive about relying on the RNG to that extent.
Also, er, didn't SD Garchomp get banned?
Blame Game - I wanted to reply to you because of how many times you've posted, but I'm having trouble finding anything that you actually said. You keep complaining that other people aren't developing their arguments, but I can't find anything from you beyond "see other people's posts," "grrr! your opinion doesn't count because I don't agree with it!," and "we should test because somehow the metagame might magically improve because of it, but I'm not actually going to try to explain how"? Am I missing something here?
When you are putting the amount of effort into practice and team creation that is necessary to be truly competitive on our biggest stages here at Smogon, nothing is more frustrating than losing because of luck. I'll be the first to admit many players bring it upon themselves by rolling the dice too many times, but most of us have a very love/hate relationship with this game because there already a huge amount of dicerolls in this game. The first lesson players learn once they start getting better is that sometimes no matter how well you play - how good your predictions are, or how well you maximize your odds - the improbable will happen. It's just a fact of this game we play - there are so many matches and so many dicerolls that weird stuff will happen sometimes, often in important tournament matches and in other important and embarassing situations.
It is the job of the players to put themselves in as good of a position as possible, but there's some amount of help we can and should give them as rulemakers. We've made it pretty clear we think our job here is to make the most competitive game possible, rather than trying to stick to allowing the maximum options - that's why we banned Salamence, Garchomp, the Lati@s, and Manaphy, and why we have an Uber clause at all in these days of Ubers finally having a real metagame of its own. It'd be awfully inconsistant of us, and frankly irresponsible of us, to then introduce an element that inherently makes the game less competitive by taking more power out of the players' hands and putting it into the cold, digital hands of the RNG.
In regards to the main issue of whether or not we should test, there's a huge impracticality in this divide among posters. I suspect that the rather overwhelming opposition by "people who actually play the game competitively" is a good sign that testing would be futile, were it to come about. Let's be realistic, no one will start playing on suspect and discover "oh WOW, I only lost 2 games every 10 I should have won instead of 3, this is MUCH better than I thought!" These same people saying they don't want to test are going to be the people who have the credentials that earn them a spot on the council, or at worst, suspect voting rights, were we to take a step back. What value would the uproar then have?
I feel somewhat guilty encouraging that there not be a test here, since unlike many of the posters before me I was around when the testing order was decided and I just figured I'd deal with it later(though like many others, I may have opened my mouth if I'd known just how much later that later was going to be). However, I'm really not sure what benefit we will gain from doing the test, and I certainly see detriments - I think there's a very noticable and undesirable lack of permanence and legitimacy in a metagame while it is being tested, and after years of tests in Gen 4, I think it is time to let it finally be what it is until it is supplanted by Gen 5. If there is some overwhelming need to test it either now or later I'd rather get it out of the way now, but considering the type of players who will play(and have played in the previous tests) enough, and well enough, to be voting on these clauses when the time would come, I can't imagine there's a whole lot of benefit to bothering with this. I think it's probably time to just let things be.
Sorry, Jump.
I can't quote properly because I'm writing on my phone at work and pre-typed the post in my word processor so bare with me on the replies and typos/spelling errors/etc. until I get home, please.
Firestorm - Two things about the VGC reference:
I do not think I can emphasize enough how different the doubles and singles metagames are, and as such, how strategies and rules that are good/bad/broken in one are often not at all so in the other. Plagues in singles like Stealth Rock and Outrage are subpar to awful in VGC, and as such I'd say this is an extremely faulty comparison. It is interesting that you post this after using DT + Psych Up in VGC yourself, though. I guess managing to lose so frequently with it is a good way to support your point... perhaps if you were to counteract that by winning under standard rules you'd really show us how that shitty Double Team was the difference!
Point 2 being that I seem to recall that, in spite of both Evasion and OHKOs being weaker in doubles than singles, I seem to recall Japan's National VGC champ rocking a resttalk Sheer Cold Suicune. Can you imagine the uproar if that were to happen in one of our big annuals like the Smogon Tournament or the Tour finals or whatever? Even when it is at its weakest it is gamebreaking.
I realize I'm being unnecessarily abrasive here, but I think even doing so on purpose I didn't quite catch up to the opening line of your first post. I'll do better next time, I promise.
Deck Knight - I enjoy the part of your post that mentions the Lapras/Blissey anecdote, because I think it does bring up a good point in that there certainly are intelligent ways to use OHKOs - it's not like I'd just expect teams of 6 scarfed OHKO users, or whatever. The problem to me comes on the other side of the field - the opponent has already made a mistake by giving Lapras a free switch, but the options s/he now has are a little too limited.
Hopefully s/he switched immediately unless it's running something silly to counter this type of set, like Sub or Toxic and pray or something, but let's assume it's a standard Blissey for the sake of theorymon. The odds are horribly against it if it stays in, so what does it switch to?
Well, it knows Sheer Cold is coming eventually, so how about Sturdy?
Only a small amount of Pokemon even have it, which almost necessitates overcentralization in itself, and the problem is made even worse by the fact they're all basically three types. Lapras, Articuno, and Suicune are all going to beat up Ground/Rock sturdy mons easily, while Steel Sturdy mons are going to either have to try to survive without Leftovers against these guys, who can use more conventional special attacks awfully well, or risk being crushed by the Magnezone you can expect OHKO oriented teams to carry. Even ADV OU throwback Dugtrio could do a lot of damage in support of these teams, since even if it doesn't get the KO it shouldn't have any trouble making sure it knocks shit down low enough for his buddies to finish it off and remove the OHKO absorber from the field - that is, assuming your opponent isn't using something stupid like Donphan that has Sturdy but can't actually fight any of these Pokemon anyway.
Point is, there are always going to be a decent amount of opportunities to slide those OHKO users in, and then the other side of the field has to play the odds and hope a few times. OHKOs are just flat out going to work sometimes - they're incredibly at odds with the general flow of play, normally revolving around type differences and switching and predicting incoming mons... there's not enough prediction in just dealing up another hand and hoping for that blackjack. That, to me, is the difference between Sheer Cold Lapras(less so Fissure Hippowdon, who is ever so slightly less absurd because I can use Levitate/Birds) and Fire Blast Infernape - I can feasibly predict Fire Blast like any other move and let my Suicune laugh off the damage. If you'd Earthquaked with HIppo I'd be able to laugh that off too, but with Fissure there's that 30% you just killed your "counter", even though conventional mons would say I just made a good switch. That isn't a healthy change, to me - the idea of a hard counter is dying, but the game doesn't work when it's completely dead.
Writing this reply makes me think of times I've sprung resttalk Sheer Cold Lapras and DT Sub Sheer Cold Articuno on unsuspecting players who clicked the clauses incorrectly, though. Hehe... sometimes luck is fun. Though there isn't much satisfying about winning with that sort of thing, either.
As an addendum in response to a more recent post, I don't think OHKOs being available to both players really changes the skill argument, which is based on the person who clicks the right button more often winning rather the person who wins RNG slots coming out on top. I think if the metagame were to ever get to the point where, even if it were somehow the best move for both of them, two skilled players were firing off OHKOs on both sides of the field in a big event we'd have failed in this role we seem to have adopted as guardians of the metagame. There's not much competitive about relying on the RNG to that extent.
Also, er, didn't SD Garchomp get banned?
Blame Game - I wanted to reply to you because of how many times you've posted, but I'm having trouble finding anything that you actually said. You keep complaining that other people aren't developing their arguments, but I can't find anything from you beyond "see other people's posts," "grrr! your opinion doesn't count because I don't agree with it!," and "we should test because somehow the metagame might magically improve because of it, but I'm not actually going to try to explain how"? Am I missing something here?