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.

No Hax/Luck Metagame Concept

Discussion in 'Other Metagames' started by luigimario64, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. Livio

    Livio
    is a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Well, hac is part of game, good or bad i prefer play with it.

    You can t replace it, that because it limit much more the team building process, especially if accuracy or secondary effect are maximyzed, for example, if Scald Burn or Discharge Para will be 100%, moves as surf or thunderbolt, with a base power better will be forgotten (i mean about the usage) and all this things will make a Metagame and a game again more cheap, if moves like Hydro Pump, Thunder (even not under Rain), Focus Blast or Hurricane will have 100 accuracy, there will be not a choice, because them have more Bpower and the discussion will be moved around min/max Damages.
    I agree about critical hits, many times they are so unsopportble, but them make this game how it is. Without hax the game lose his unpredictability and will be all except Pokemon.
  2. Satisfaction

    Satisfaction

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    198
    Under these rules, rain teams in particular will be nerfed, which is what alot of people had been wanting anyway, with the loss of hurricane, thunder, and jirachi. But sleep powder and will-o-wisp getting xed too seems rather unfair its pretty much promoting no weather, which is effectively the opposite of the current meta. Overall it should offer a fresh change in pace, but its probably not going to take off because its so different
  3. Arizona

    Arizona

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    50
    I support removing luck from the game. It doesn't matter if it is a "part of pokemon"; Arceus is a pokemon and it is kept out of OU because OU with Arceus would suck. Hax sucks, therefore it should be removed. Probability management is a skill, but the caprices of luck have stolen far more games from skilled players than can be justified that way. And when both players are equally good at probability management? Then the skill distinguishing benefit is lost completely and all luck can do is give the game to the losing player. An often forgotten cost of hax is the frustration that will sooner or later (sooner, for many) cause players to rage and spew foul language and insults into the chat, creating a worse playing experience. Removing it is a difficult thing to do though. DuskMod already did a few of these things, though I'm still waiting for the axe to fall on that pernicious damage roll.
  4. Duckster

    Duckster

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    346
    Me and my Charizard call it hax when we have to fight in the rain.
  5. Super Mario Bro

    Super Mario Bro All we ever look for

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Posting here to say that I like this idea. The truth of the matter is that critical hits don't really add another layer of thought or skill to the game. They just give instant advantage to the player who pulls one off first.

    As for stall, there has been so much power creep that it's hard to imagine it would be broken even with a simple mechanics change. Plus, if your only method of defeating stall and slow boosters like Crocune is through hoping for a critical hit, there is something seriously wrong with your team.
  6. Champion Steve

    Champion Steve

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    I'd say that 'praying' for a critical hit (or even a secondary effect) can be a valid strategy. If you know that the bulky sweeper requires quite a few boosts to pull off a sweep, the odds of it happening become not insignificant. Of course, no-one likes it when their otherwise solid switch-in gets immediately critted. Part of me wishes that crit chances started at 0 when something switches in or gets critted and then rose to some cap as it got hit.

    I can't imagine that the metagame suggested would be that hard to implement. However, I feel that the predetermined RNG idea is infinitely superior. It opens up *so* many strategic possibilities and would never feel unfair. Low accuracy moves would retain their advantages while having a super neat skill dependency.
    'The current RNG distribution is unfavourable to me... Do I switch and steal the good RNG?'
    'Those are some bad RNGs coming up. If my Choiced Terrakion uses Stone Edge, it'll need to switch after this turn. But if I use Close Combat, that Volcarona will setup all over me...'
    'Those are some pretty favourable RNGs... Time to bring out my Jirachi for some completely hax-free flinching fun!'

    ...we might even see moves like Zap Cannon...
  7. LudwiG

    LudwiG

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    It does add another layer of thought or skill to the game. Read:

  8. Super Mario Bro

    Super Mario Bro All we ever look for

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Crits rarely ever prevent people from playing any differently because they have a low probability of occurring at all. The only real exception is when you're using a slow booster like CM Reuniclus or Sigilyph, but they are already hindered by this fast-paced metagame. Crits usually occur when I have a supposedly hard check to defeat a rampaging threat. For example, my slightly weakened Gliscor dies to a Stone Edge crit from RP Terrakion. What do I do now? Oh, *ragequit*.

    IMO, crits shouldn't exist in such an offensive and power creeped metagame. They don't make defensive teams irrelevant, but they give offense a leg up that they don't need.

    The only real change I would make is Espeon to Uber, because full BP would become unbearable with a crit rate of zero.

    Also, the guy below me has some good points.
  9. Arizona

    Arizona

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    50
    It doesn't even out if risk management causes the more skilled player to win one extra time against a weaker player and hax causes them to lose ten extra times. Those numbers are just an illustration, but it's impossible for it to fully "even out" no matter how few games the weaker player wins.

    Consider players A and B playing some arbitrary game. Player A is better at all skills, including risk management. In ten games without luck player A wins 10/10. Now add randomness. Although A now has another skill to use, luck eventually gives B a win. Even though A played better at every turn, A is now 19/20. Despite adding another "skill" to the game, it's worse at distinguishing skill. There is mathematically no way for risk management to fully offset the skill ignoring effect of luck.

    In fact it is unavoidable for luck to not just ignore, but negate skill. This is because luck cannot give the game to someone that is already winning. Player A probably got just as lucky as player B, but that luck didn't help because A was ahead anyway. Luck can turn a worse player's loss into a win, but it can't turn a better player's win into a double-win to balance that.

    If you are better than the opponent, you already either built a better team, made better predictions and bluffs, or evaluated the position better and made sacrifices for a tactical end. You can add "multiplying fractions" to those skills if you think calculating 1-(15/16)^n is so interesting, but it isn't worth it if it risks overturning the result of all the other skills. There are much better ways to raise the skill ceiling.
  10. Nyara

    Nyara

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    287
    Actually, luck is present even if you're removing ALL the "hax" things, why? Match-ups, Pokémon's bread and sugar is it, also, Pokémon's life is also the classic argument of accuracy vs power, wanna win against some teams you couldn't do otherwise? Risk more and put that Focus Blast on your Gengar or Alakazam and blow that Tyranitar the 70% of times, "countering" at some degree the natural "hax" of Match-Ups, and if you don't want to risk, you can use more precise moves, and win with more confidence against some teams, but you'll lost against some others more if you're not taking risks.

    Critical Hits and rarely secondary effects by other hand are the "game breaking" factor, as for example you can still overcome some circunstances thanks to them, you teams had no counters against certain Pokémon? Option A: Forfeit like a chicken (unique option without "hax") / Option B: Still playing and hope for a Critical Hit or for a miss of it's attacks, and try to overpredict it, too.

    At the end, you're not removing "hax" from the game, you're just choosing your poison between rage for a Critical Hit, and rage quit for a bad or impossible match-up, and I think we all know how disgusting are the rage quitters.

    The unique way to remove "hax" and "luck" from Pokémon is by just allowing the use of only 6 Pokémon with only 1 set being able to be used, and both players are forced to lead with the same Pokémon (and make magic with the speed tie), and removing all the random chances of moves and stuff. But of course, don't come later to me to say it's boring and repetitive as hell.

    And for the part of at least reducing luck factors, the idea of knowing of beforehand the RNG's is the unique viable solution, as it allows you to reduce the imperfect information "hax" trouble at some degree, and could make you think more, and play your chances better, other options are just cripple Pokémon because yes.
  11. HUARGH

    HUARGH

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    This is actually something I wanted to make a topic about as well because this concept is of particular interest to me, being an avid gamer (and chess player) I always get a sour taste in my mouth when 'hax' happens, in pokemon and/or other games.

    Pokemon is a game of imperfect information. If you aren't exactly sure what that means, it means that in order to make the optimal decision, you require information that is not (currently) available to you. Poker is a great example of a game with imperfect information - you do not know the hand of the other player and are thus unable to make the true optimal decision, so what you will do instead is make the optimal decision based on the information that you have available to you. Then you have games with pseudo-perfect information - all the information you need is right there, but due to time constraints you may not be able to react to the information in time to make use of it. This is shown in fighting games such as Street Fighter, where it is simply not humanly possible to react to 100% of the opponent's actions. A game of truly perfect information would be chess.

    The problem with the hax-free version presented in the topic is that the game is currently balanced around having this 'hax'. Boosting moves would be much more powerful with the absence of critical hits or even secondary effects such as paralyze from thunderbolt. You generally want to swap into something that allows you to set-up, but there are plenty of situations where one crit could ruin your day which would make the strategy of +6/+6ing a pokemon unfavorable. I want you to go back to 3rd gen (adv) and think of Celebi with Calm Mind and Recover. STAB on Ice Beam was relatively rare, but it was still super-effective against Celebi. However, due to carefully managing Celebi's CMs and Recovers, you could actually become incredibly strong if it wasn't for the freeze and/or critical hit chance. Strategies like these would become much more powerful and/or increase the importance of moves such as Leaf Blade (if we follow your 100% crit suggestion). Either way you are messing with the balance of the game and it is hard to foresee how much you'd mess with it due to all the factors.

    Another issue is that the lack of crits and secondary effects promote passive play. I don't know if you have ever played 2nd gen (GSC), but I doubt many people would enjoy that. If your strategy relies on swapping out a lot of pokemon and using 'passive' moves such as Toxic, Rest, Swords Dance and so forth, it will be stronger with the suggested changes. Many times I have tried to make elaborate stall teams across the pokemon generations, but swapping Tyranitar into the 5th flamethrower, sludge bomb or ice beam simply wasn't a good strategy despite it taking nearly no damage and allowing me to set up. What if secondary effects were removed? Do we really want to reward passive switch-whorish play?

    'Hax' isn't the only problem, however. Let us say that you have any Choice Band pokemon. The pokemon you are facing would get OHKOd by your Earthquake plus you have the speed advantage, but if you stay in and use any other non-OHKOing move, the opposing pokemon can OHKO you if it decides to stay in. Worse, uneducated, naive players call this phenomenon 'mindgames', while in fact it is mostly dumb luck. What you generally end up doing is earthquaking the opposing pokemon because in the worst case scenario he will swap and force you to swap out yourself, giving him momentum. This is the optimal decision if we are assuming that your opponent is doing 50/50, but if your opponent is any good he will not act as if it was 50/50. Let us say that your opponent has two pokemon remaining - Articuno and Aggron, whereas you have CB Rhydon. It is currently Rhydon vs. Aggron and you know for a fact you are faster and can OHKO him with Earthquake. However, he can swap out to Articuno, who you'd definitely OHKO with any rock move. There are basically two decisions (technically 3 - swapping out yourself, but to make my point clear we'll totally ignore this option because it greatly simplifies the maths). You Earthquake to OHKO Aggron, or you use any rock move to OHKO Articuno. What do you do? You will probably Earthquake as that decision is the 'best', meaning that if you got this exact situation for 1000 more times, you'd win in the long run if you used Earthquake, as you either kill a pokemon or have to swap out vs. killing a pokemon or losing a pokemon. Your opponent should know this as well and can therefor adjust. If you're more likely to use Earthquake (which you are as it is 'optimal' assuming 50/50), the opponent is more likely to swap in Articuno, essentially making it a 50/50 guess anyway. This concept is known as WIFOM (read more here: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=WIFOM).

    If you are removing 'hax', should you also find a way to remove WIFOM-situations? They are everywhere.
  12. akela

    akela

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,312
    In a luck free metagame, close to 95% of existing pokemon are unplayabe and 90% of moves are either banned (for having less than perfect accuracy or a secondary effect) or inferior to the remaining 10% of moves. This will remove more skill from Pokemon than it will add.

    A bit of hax you did not address is the issue of inexact damage. You can use Flamethrower on the same pokemon 3 different times and do a different amount of damage each time because of how the game rounds. How are you going to fix that? Code every move to do a fixed amount of damage?
  13. Champion Steve

    Champion Steve

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    But teh perdictions!!!1!

    Haha, but yeah, you're right that things do often come down essentially coinflips. However, I would argue that, till endgame at least, it's rarely the case that guessing the wrong choice costs you the entire game. The effects are generally less clear which is were risk management comes in. Personally I'd say a little randomness (though not to the game changing extent of your counter being critted) prevents the game from becoming stale. In the case of the known RNG idea (which I was hoping would take over the thread, btw) it would be the what chain of numbers would be.
  14. Super Mario Bro

    Super Mario Bro All we ever look for

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Yea, I'm really iffy about eliminating inaccurate moves and messing with the secondary effects of moves like Discharge. Doing that seems like it would do more harm than good overall because it significantly reduces the element of risk management.

    I would, however, like to try a crit-free metagame and leave it at that. Oh, and ban Espeon along with that change. That would be a fascinating experiment.
  15. Nyara

    Nyara

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    287
    I think HUARHG make it clear as the water, Pokémon is actually a game like the Poker; with the exception there's more ways to play around it, but at the end, Pokémon is a game of incomplete information with random factors on match-ups and more ways to play risk-reward games as a way to overcome the incredible variety and possible bad match-ups.

    Erasing "luck" from the game could be as bored as eliminating luck from the Poker... So, pre-knowing the numbers could be the unique way to overcome certain grade of luck (you can't remove WIFOM or match-ups without destroying everything, and if you remove "random" factors, incluiding Critical Hits, then it's just changing a poison for the other, as the match-ups will determine the win from the start <- making totally useless to do Pokémon Battles again). The answer to WIFOM: Both wines have poison, so, choose your poison, and expect the best.
  16. Arizona

    Arizona

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    50
    As for WIFOM, that is completely different. It seems to be the fad to suggest prediction is no better than guessing. If that's the case you must explain why there are Rock Paper Scissors championships and not "Coin Flip" championships. Predicting the subtle patterns of an opponent is so different from guessing, it's practically an insult to suggest it. Anyone that has seen high level RTS bo7s for instance knows that build orders are not selected at random, they are chosen with consideration of the opponent and previous games. Yes sometimes these predictions fail, but that is because the other player is equally good at bluffing, not because they are acting randomly. Humans are naturally bad at acting with true statistical randomness, and usually become more predictable when they attempt it. Predicting a human is in another class entirely from predicting an RNG, and removing luck has little or nothing to do with it.

    Of course, a human could run an RNG to make decisions for them in WIFOMs, but that by definition will not produce an advantage, only equality, thus it would be pointless. Actually worse than pointless, because after getting in the habit of flipping a coin to decide WIFOMs, sooner or later that player would overlook a third option or a reason why the situation was not really a WIFOM. It would just be a bad habit.

    By the way, @Super Mario Bro and HUARGH, a meta without crits already exists, and neither Espeon nor "passive switch-whorish" stall is a problem. On the contrary, stall is pretty weak in DM. The metagame importance of luck in keeping stall and BP down is greatly exaggerated; once you have decided to alter the meta (by reducing luck) it is perfectly possible to adjust the strength of any strategy by other means. It's not like Baton Pass or stall would become broken and we would be hopeless of doing anything about it.
  17. Super Mario Bro

    Super Mario Bro All we ever look for

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Yea, I agree with the part about stall not being a problem. Seriously, there are a ton of viable stallbreakers and stallbreaking strategies that are available: Mixmence, SD Lucario, Nasty Plot/Taunt-Wisp Mew, Rapid Spin + offensive pressure...even a last man Crocune, CM Reuniclus, or Curselax. Stall is just overwhelmed by the number of powerful threats in this meta, so it would actually be nice if they got a small boost.

    As for BP...I'm a bit skeptical that Espeon wouldn't be broken in a crit-less meta. I had a high win rate with a full BP team even when around half of my losses were due to crits. Regardless, I think BP is a degenerate and autopilot strategy, and it potentially being top-tier makes me uncomfortable.

    @Nyara: I strongly disagree with the notion that the winner of the match would be automatically determined from team preview in a crit-less meta. That sentiment disregards everything that separates the good from the great, the boys from the men -- prediction, double-switching, bluffing, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to win even when things look bad. Of course, when two great players of equal skill play against each other, the person with the greater match-up is more likely to win. But guess what - that's no different in a meta with crits. You'll have to clarify exactly what you mean because I'm not buying it.

    Also, keep in mind, I'm not advocating for hax to be removed completely like the OP of this thread does -- just critical hits.
  18. Nyara

    Nyara

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    287
    I said about a metagame without any "hax/luck" (like the first post said), not about with just not critical hits, that's somewhat fine, still breaking a bit the game balance, but nothing really important considering that on avarage only a single critical hit happens per game (maybe two on avarage against or with stall teams).
  19. Super Mario Bro

    Super Mario Bro All we ever look for

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Keep in mind, a single crit is often able to tip a game in favor of one player or another. Isn't that upsetting the "balance" you speak of?
  20. Nyara

    Nyara

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    287
    Taking in account it helps to balance a bit the match-ups issue, and make something to go at the offensive when all is lost on place of just rage quitting on mid-game, so, yes, it can balance a bit the misspredictions and other WIFOM and stuff issues (it also does help to give more variety in-battle). But of course, some people can get really mad with a critical-hit, and they are the less luck-needed thing of the metagame, so, a metagame without them is not really something bad, at least for that niche of people who rage with critical hits, I don't really care to play something like that, but I guess some people do, and it's not really something that game-changing nor important at all.

    I guess the non-critical hit metagame just make the Stage 1 with 0% of rate, because that could be injust against the High-Critical Hit moves, Super Luck and stuff abilities.
  21. HUARGH

    HUARGH

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    I don't think you know what you are talking about. By chance I happen to be a dual-race ex-GM league sc2 player (p/z) and had to write a huge essay on rock/paper/scissors and the mechanics/psychology behind it a few years ago. In sc2, most professional players plan their builds before the event itself, it is why you saw HongUnPrime (I think it was HongUn?) go DTs in 4 games of the GSL finals against IMNesTea. Multiple players have admitted or hinted (with DeMusliM literally saying it) that they simply plan out their builds beforehand and stick to them no matter what in the mirror match-ups and occasionally non-mirror match-ups. There are always exceptions, but they are rarely there (one exception would be in a dreamhack final where WhiteRa played against MC, the last game being Shakuras Plateau - they had already played 4 games against each other and WhiteRa did the exact same build every game prior to that which had a glaring weakness to proxy gates, which MC did). Another example would be if you play many ZvTs against the same Terran and notice that he skimps on defense around 8-9 mins you could opt for a baneling bust.

    In Rock/Paper/Scissors, people have many 'builds' pre-set. I remember speaking to a Canadian repeat champion, and he explained a lot about 'newbie tendencies' and identifying which people were in the tournament for the kicks and laughs and who were really serious about it. When he thought he was playing against a newbie, he would use stereotypes such as that women would usually open with scissors, guys would usually open with rock. There are many more like these (off the top of my head: when you beat someone they will usually try to throw that same move back at you, so countering your last winning move is also effective and if someone repeats their sequence you'll usually want to play the move that draws or wins you the game assuming they won't repeat themselves 3 times). In fact, it should technically be 0.33 draw 0.33 lose 0.33 win, but when people can see the opponent moving they will subconsciously mimic (mirror neurons, same reason yawning is contagious) their opponent, resulting in slightly more draws (this disappears when you blindfold them). You can google a lot of information about this stuff.

    It is rather an insult to suggest that the guy losing the guess got outplayed. I'm not saying that a good player can't have a prediction-advantage over a bad player (and even that can be misleading as total newbies are often unpredictable), but eventually you hit a skill cap when it comes to predicting, there are only so many rules and possibilities to account for. Even when you make a prediction that would be right in 80% of the cases, it may still be wrong. This doesn't matter as much in poker as you play countless of hands in a relatively short time span, but in pokemon where you usually do not play the same team and/or opponent that many times there really is no way of telling who is the superior guesser or predicter, but it is possible to point at someone and say 'he has more luck'.

    But in games where build orders matter a lot (i.e. PvP, ZvZ, TvT), they actually are chosen at random in the pro community, rendering your point invalid. The underlined point would debunk your own argument if it somehow was valid anyway - if the other person is of equal skill, he will know that the enemy will know of his tendencies. You just get WIFOM. There is no fucking skill involved past a certain level, it is just luck. Once again - yes, you can rape newbies by (over)predicting, but it's just 50/50 at a higher level.

    Thus it would be 50/50.

    Not a mistake you necessarily have to make, totally unrelated.
  22. LudwiG

    LudwiG

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    130
    That's true when considering two players with a big skill difference. However, in reality, both of them will also play other players. Consider a community of 1000 people, the situation will be different.
  23. Joim

    Joim Navigate the pitfalls, cross the great divide!
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris an Administratoris a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,753
    I've thought of something like this for a while. It's an interesting thing to try, but I have a couple of comments on your idea:

    Critical Hits
    I would completly remove critical hits from the game and adjust base power / accuracy on certain moves accordingly: Storm Throw, for instance, would have 100 BP. Moves like Stone Edge would never fail but would never crit.

    Secondary Effects
    Some moveswould need to be boosted as they are solely used for that chances.Why using Scald over Surf, for instance? Moves become redundant. Something like making these moves two hits would add to the metagame too.

    Move Accuracy
    Instead of removing moves with low accuracy, I'd tone them down. For instance, Focus Blast would still have 120BP, 100% accuracy but it would drop the user's SpAtk and SpDef by one upon use, in a similar fashion to Superpower.

    On final notes, I'd change the now useless abilities so they can be still useful. This way, this metagame could work just like another NEXT but free of factor of luck. I'd additionally change too the recharge moves so they all have 200 BP to make them actually usable.

    Despite that I understand the concerns on removing hax and I agree on some of the arguments in its favor, I think it'd be interesting to see how this would work and develop. I'm willing to implement the mod to my own server where I test things to contribute to PS so this concept can be tested.
  24. Camisado

    Camisado

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    133
    I always thought the best way to eliminate hax is to create a point system in which you store point and spend them to achieve certain 'hax effects', and they would be the only way to achieve them. For example:

    +x points when you use a move with 100% accuracy
    -y points when use use a move with less than 100% accuracy
    Spend Z amount of points, get a burn off Scald, or a -SpDef from Shadow Ball
    Spend x (a relatively large amount) amount of points, critical hit, depending on the base damage of the attack.
    Spend Y (relatively large amount) evade a attack with less than 100% accuracy, the cost changing depending on the accuracy of moves

    There are other aspects of the idea that you'd have to explore, like "What happens if you run out of points? Do you start with points?

    Balancing the values would be difficult, but if one could be created, the spending of the credit would not only eliminate haxy outcomes, but introducing another skill-based construct to the game.
  25. Laga

    Laga Drinking is borrowing happiness from tomorrow
    is a Tutoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,029
    This idea is fantastic. But i just dont think that it will be so popular. PO once tried it iirc, but everyone just stuck to regular OU :I Besides, hax does keep some methods in check... get it? cause haxfreemons would be like chess :D

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