Evasion: Test or Ban?

[Bliksem]

but saying it needs to be phazered means running a phazer, not everyone has a team capabale of throwing in phazers either

If you don't have a phazer, your team will suffer against any team that works with stat boosting moves. If your team doesn't have a phazer, what will you do against a Calm Minding Celebi or Suicune or Bronzong? What about a Nasty Plotting Infernape or a cursing Swampert? How do you handle your typical baton pass team? Phazers are already commonly used in one fashion or another, whether it be from Roar or whirlwind, or just forcing a switch through Yawn, Confuse Ray or whatever.

Who cares if it's overpowered, that's not the point of this topic. The point of this topic is that it shifts the balance away from skill and towards luck. I can't see how any of you can possibly argue that it does not.

We argue that it does not shift the balance significantly because of the risks that the person using that move has to take. A team has to be designed to make maximum use of Double Team. If hastily thrown in, it will cause a lot more damage to the person using it than had another move been in its place. That's what we're insisting.

Do you honestly believe that skill is just having the right moves? If so, I could make this incredible team and give it to some random, and they'd be able to win most of the fights they had with the team. No, skill is using the right moves at the right time so that you're able to achieve victory by being prepared for as many scenarios as possible. It is knowing the habits of your opponent. It is the ability to draw conclusions based off your experience.

In fact, I would almost go so far to say that it doesn't *matter* if Double Team did in fact shift the balance a little towards luck; the better person should be prepared for it. The better battler should be able to think "Hmm, this Pokemon just used Double Team. That means it can't have [enter specific combination of moves here]" or "Hey, that Pokemon used Double Team earlier. I should taunt it."

Heck, I can see Double Team being used as a mindgame. Use it to throw off or discourage your opponent into making mistakes. You sacrifice a vital moveslot in most cases to accomplish this. A person fighting against Double Team has to be a lot more cautious. They can't be as risky as they would normally be. Would you just Explode your Metagross against a Latias that has gotten one Double Team off?

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Okay, I need to ask this so I can stop thinking about it:

How many of you have actually read Smogon's philosophy?

I can't help but go back to this line about the OU metagame:

The "OU metagame" is the result of a search for a balanced game, where player skill, teambuilding skill, and a certain amount of luck combine to execute victory.

Is it just me or am I seeing an emphasis on skill? Shouldn't we, as a community, be trying to promote skill over luck?

Are those of you arguing for testing Evasion of the opinion that it promotes skill?

We might want to resolve the fundamental disagreements that I believe we have on skill vs. luck before we even consider whether Evasion moves deserve testing.

 

[Bliksem]

Are those of you arguing for testing Evasion of the opinion that it promotes skill?

Yes. As I've said many times.

EDIT: And as an additive, I also argue that it promotes not only skill but variety, strategies, and potentially the use of even more Pokemon.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Yes. As I've said many times.

Evasion adds another element of luck to the game. Why do you believe this game needs more luck?

And as an additive, I also argue that it promotes not only skill but variety, strategies, and potentially the use of even more Pokemon.

That may be a result of its testing, but why should an element of luck be considered in a game that promotes skill? It should fundamentally be in line with our philosophy before we decide if it's overpowered.

 

[RABicle]

HAY GUYS NEW IDEA! BECAUSE THE GAME IS ONLY ABOUT SKILL I SUGGEST WE ONLY USE FIXED DAMAGE MOVES! CAN SOMEONE SET UP A SWISS TOURNAMENT SO WE CAN TEST THIS EXCITING BREAKTHROUGH?

UPDATE! Bad news. I've just been informed that HP IVs are determined by luck, as are Speed. It's seems clear now that we should hold a swiss tournament of other Japanese turn based RPGS and Strategy games to determine whether or not we should ban Pokémon from the Pokémon metagame and find out what game can truly reflect Smogon's philosophy.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

HAY GUYS NEW IDEA! BECAUSE THE GAME IS ONLY ABOUT SKILL I SUGGEST WE ONLY USE FIXED DAMAGE MOVES! CAN SOMEONE SET UP A SWISS TOURNAMENT SO WE CAN TEST THIS EXCITING BREAKTHROUGH?

...and that environment promotes skill? ><

 

[RABicle]

No but it removes anxiety, luck, fun, interest, thought and any need to adapt. That's why we banned DT in the first place right?

 

[Bliksem]

Evasion adds another element of luck to the game. Why do you believe this game needs more luck?

That may be a result of its testing, but why should an element of luck be considered in a game that promotes skill? It should fundamentally be in line with our philosophy before we decide if it's overpowered.

Those are very loaded questions. What I support is the skill involved with Double Team. You seem to think that skill and luck are inversely proportional. I believe that the elements of luck are what keep the game interesting. If Pokemon were incapable of critting and every attack did its average amount of damage, then what? If you knew exactly when sleep would end every time, and every status could only be afflicted by status moves and would be applied 100% of the time? You'd basically have battles decided from the very first turn. Battles would play out almost identically every single time because misses and critical hits and things that are uncertain would be absent. Theorectally, you could take two teams, line them up, and script out the results. You'd get something that would equate to chess, and personally, that's not fun to me. But in the end, the level of skill wouldn't change, just the level of certainty. In some cases, it could possibly drop in some levels because a person could 'go through the motions' and obtain the same outcome. There is no pressure because you know EXACTLY what is going to happen next.

I believe that a person should have every right to utilize Double Team if he or she wishes.

You know what? Prove to me that Double Team promotes luck in a way that hampers skill in the long run. Prove to me that it would be determental in the long run, not just in the short run. Luck keeps things interesting and exciting. It keeps people wanting to try again. Stop using that blanket statement "it promotes luck over skill", give me reasons, calculations. Tell me why Double Team exceeds that boundary of 'a certain amount of luck' even when we've proven that the time it takes to get to that point is incredibly risky and potentially determental to the team using the strategy.

 

[Syberia]

Secondary Effect:
Raises user's EVASIVENESS one stage.

Evasiveness: The chance of dodging an attack.

Proven.

If you don't think pokemon battling should be based on skill as much as possible, then I don't think Smogon is necessarily the place for you. Banning Thunder Wave, and all non-100% accurate moves is unrealistic. Banning Double Team is not; it's been done.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that, in some sort of "perfect" world, games would be decided from turn one. I challenge any skilled player who's been around for a year or two to come out and say they "like it" when they make a great prediction only to have the whole thing screwed over by luck. Pokemon would not be a "boring" game if luck was removed, because what each individual player decides to do is not based on luck, but skill. Much like every game of chess is not decided from turn one, contrary to your example.

Smogon is a competative community. Not a casino. Competition should be based on skill and ability, not who can hit through 6 Double Teams first.

 

[Shadrin]

Those are very loaded questions. What I support is the skill involved with Double Team. You seem to think that skill and luck are inversely proportional. I believe that the elements of luck are what keep the game interesting. If Pokemon were incapable of critting and every attack did its average amount of damage, then what? If you knew exactly when sleep would end every time, and every status could only be afflicted by status moves and would be applied 100% of the time? You'd basically have battles decided from the very first turn. Battles would play out almost identically every single time because misses and critical hits and things that are uncertain would be absent. Theorectally, you could take two teams, line them up, and script out the results. You'd get something that would equate to chess, and personally, that's not fun to me. But in the end, the level of skill wouldn't change, just the level of certainty. In some cases, it could possibly drop in some levels because a person could 'go through the motions' and obtain the same outcome. There is no pressure because you know EXACTLY what is going to happen next.

I believe that a person should have every right to utilize Double Team if he or she wishes.

You know what? Prove to me that Double Team promotes luck in a way that hampers skill in the long run. Prove to me that it would be determental in the long run, not just in the short run. Luck keeps things interesting and exciting. It keeps people wanting to try again. Stop using that blanket statement "it promotes luck over skill", give me reasons, calculations. Tell me why Double Team exceeds that boundary of 'a certain amount of luck' even when we've proven that the time it takes to get to that point is incredibly risky and potentially determental to the team using the strategy.

I disagree with your assertion that battles would be identical. I also do not find Chess enjoyable, there is a reason I prefer pokemon to Chess, and it's not the luck, its the mind games in the double blind situation. Battles wouldn't play out the same because your opponent would know that your Gengar caries Focus Blast and switch out instead of letting his Snorlax taking the hit. Essentially, what already happens, except without the possibility of luck interfering. Without luck, the player who preforms the best will always win, which is what we want in a competitive game right?

This I think, is where there is some misunderstanding. Saying that luck decreases skill is not the correct terminology. It isn't necessarily true, there is certainly skill in managing the probabilities. However, there is always the chance of a random miss causing what would otherwise be a solid win into a complete loss.

 

[Bliksem]

Evasiveness: The chance of dodging an attack.

Proven.

There was never a question about what Double Team's effect in battle was.

This I think, is where there is some misunderstanding. Saying that luck decreases skill is not the correct terminology. It isn't necessarily true, there is certainly skill in managing the probabilities. However, there is always the chance of a random miss causing what would otherwise be a solid win into a complete loss.

My assertion is that such a thing is acceptable. Would it be better if Double Team worked like Protect; i.e. guaranteed that the next attack would be guaranteed to miss?

Random misses happen. That's where the skill in team building comes in. Do you equip your Gengar with Focus Blast for the higher damage, even though a miss would screw you over? Or do you opt for Hidden Power [Fighting] for more reliability, taking the less damage as a consequence? Do you use Energy Ball now, because you don't have access to Hidden Power [Ice]? Or do you just use Destiny Bond with a Choice Scarf? Without luck, these choices would diminish. Who would use Thunderbolt when Thunder does more damage? Who would use Flamethrower over Fire Blast? I don't believe this is how Pokemon was meant to be played.

Without luck, you take a great deal of depth out of the game. You remove a lot of the risk/reward elements that the game focuses on. The game tries to emphasize managing your probabilites by giving you situations that are ENTIRELY luck based (nature, IVs, shinies) and giving you tools to tilt that luck in your favor (everstone, breeding, chaining). This is reflected in its battle mechanic where it gives you options between instant (Energy Ball) and delayed (Sunny Day + Solarbeam) gratification.

It is my opinion that a competitive enivironment that maximizes a plethora of different viable strategies is much more entertaining than one that uses only a few. I believe that the addition of Double Team will add more strategies and Pokemon, and as a result, will cause the metagame to become more involved and unpredictable. That, to me, is more fun.

 

[Syberia]

There was never a question about what Double Team's effect in battle was.

No, but you seem to question to notion that it increases luck. Which I hope I have shown, for those who can't seem to understand.

I disagree with your assertion that battles would be identical. I also do not find Chess enjoyable, there is a reason I prefer pokemon to Chess, and it's not the luck, its the mind games in the double blind situation. Battles wouldn't play out the same because your opponent would know that your Gengar caries Focus Blast and switch out instead of letting his Snorlax taking the hit. Essentially, what already happens, except without the possibility of luck interfering. Without luck, the player who preforms the best will always win, which is what we want in a competitive game right?

This I think, is where there is some misunderstanding. Saying that luck decreases skill is not the correct terminology. It isn't necessarily true, there is certainly skill in managing the probabilities. However, there is always the chance of a random miss causing what would otherwise be a solid win into a complete loss.

Exactly what I've been trying to say.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Those are very loaded questions. What I support is the skill involved with Double Team. You seem to think that skill and luck are inversely proportional. I believe that the elements of luck are what keep the game interesting. If Pokemon were incapable of critting and every attack did its average amount of damage, then what? If you knew exactly when sleep would end every time, and every status could only be afflicted by status moves and would be applied 100% of the time? You'd basically have battles decided from the very first turn. Battles would play out almost identically every single time because misses and critical hits and things that are uncertain would be absent. Theorectally, you could take two teams, line them up, and script out the results. You'd get something that would equate to chess, and personally, that's not fun to me. But in the end, the level of skill wouldn't change, just the level of certainty. In some cases, it could possibly drop in some levels because a person could 'go through the motions' and obtain the same outcome. There is no pressure because you know EXACTLY what is going to happen next.

I believe that a person should have every right to utilize Double Team if he or she wishes.

You know what? Prove to me that Double Team promotes luck in a way that hampers skill in the long run. Prove to me that it would be determental in the long run, not just in the short run. Luck keeps things interesting and exciting. It keeps people wanting to try again. Stop using that blanket statement "it promotes luck over skill", give me reasons, calculations. Tell me why Double Team exceeds that boundary of 'a certain amount of luck' even when we've proven that the time it takes to get to that point is incredibly risky and potentially determental to the team using the strategy.

This post is giving me the impression that you think I want to eliminate luck. We all know that it is impossible to create a game of Pokemon that promotes skill that way.

Actually, since Evasion is banned, the onus is on people like YOU to prove that Double Team possibly shouldn't be banned.

"I support the skill involved with Double Team."

Show me the skill involved with Double Team. It takes skill to counter that move like the skill it takes to counter almost any move (even though more "luck" may be needed in most circumstances to overcome it), but does the user of the move demonstrate skill? The move inherently adds "randomness" or variance to the equation. Is there a logical strategy that can be used in which Double Team is a vital component?

P.S. Waiting for an attack to miss is NOT a universally-accepted logical strategy as it requires a degree of luck that is outside of the control of both players.

 

[Bliksem]

This post is giving me the impression that you think I want to eliminate luck. We all know that it is impossible to create a game of Pokemon that promotes skill that way.

Actually, since Evasion is banned, the onus is on people like YOU to prove that Double Team possibly shouldn't be banned.

"I support the skill involved with Double Team."

Show me the skill involved with Double Team. It takes skill to counter that move like the skill it takes to counter almost any move (even though more "luck" may be needed in most circumstances to overcome it), but does the user of the move demonstrate skill? The move inherently adds "randomness" or variance to the equation. Is there a logical strategy that can be used in which Double Team is a vital component?

P.S. Waiting for an attack to miss is NOT a universally-accepted logical strategy as it requires a degree of luck that is outside of the control of both players.

Have you not read any of my prior posts? Regardless, I'll reiterate. Double Team is best used as a mind game of sorts. It is not good enough initially to rely on; in fact, by its nature you can't rely on it. By using the move, you're either trying to accomplish one of two things; add a bit more survivability to your main attacker or trying to throw your opponent off his game. I believe this was Double Team's intention. I don't believe it was ever meant to be a main form of defense.

You can't just *wait* for a miss with Double Team. It doesn't work. Using Garchomp as an example, using Substitute prevents you from being statused and from taking more than a certain amount of damage so you can get an opportunity to use Swords Dance. If you replace Substitute with Double Team, that certainty is not availible. You are now very vulnerable to status and damage, and while missing is annoying, the hits against an unprotected Garchomp are far more useful for the opponent.

Double Team is also very subject to diminishing returns, unlike other stat boosting moves. Skillful players will limit their use of the move, while unskilled will rely on it to keep them safe from harm. But for every time they use that move, that time can be spent by the opponent increasing his or her own stats. A skilled player will try to prevent this from happening.

Double Team is very widely spread; one of the most universal moves to date. That doesn't mean that just anyone can put it on anything. You put it on something and suddenly, you lose a lot of effectiveness or type coverage. You put Double Team on a Tyranitar and you lose Pursuit or Crunch or Stone Edge or Focus Punch or Ice Beam or Earthquake or Thunderbolt or Substitute or any of the extraordinary number of other options it possesses. An unskilled player could substitute any of those moves for Double Team and Tyranitar would lose potentially a great deal of its effectiveness against any number of Pokemon it would normally be used to counter. A skilled player would analyze his team and determine what areas he could afford to sacrifice for the sake of this mindgame.

With the stigma towards this move, this would cause two effects. One, the opponent could underestimate the user of the move, believing the user to be less skilled than s/he actually is. Two, the opponent would become frustrated and become more reckless, allowing the user to capitalize on their mistakes.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Have you not read any of my prior posts? Regardless, I'll reiterate. Double Team is best used as a mind game of sorts. It is not good enough initially to rely on; in fact, by its nature you can't rely on it. By using the move, you're either trying to accomplish one of two things; add a bit more survivability to your main attacker or trying to throw your opponent off his game. I believe this was Double Team's intention. I don't believe it was ever meant to be a main form of defense.

There is no reasonable excuse for being tl;dr. I am sorry for that.

Still, you're devoting a moveslot to adding an element of chance that MIGHT help you. The risk-reward trade off is definitely there, but you have no control of the outcome; it's partly up to a RNG.

That's not going to convince me that the skill in using the move outweighs the additional luck element that it brings. In fact, IMO, confusion would almost always be more effective in accomplishing these goals--and without adding an element of luck that can't be removed by mere switching.

 

[Lord Alchemy]

Those are very loaded questions. What I support is the skill involved with Double Team. You seem to think that skill and luck are inversely proportional. I believe that the elements of luck are what keep the game interesting.

This is one of the biggest disagreements in this topic, and is a obviously a difficult subject to discuss. The one thing that competitive players argue about is that elements of luck can subvert skill. You cannot say that you play pokemon frequently and haven't lost a match you should have won because of luck, it is just how the game was designed. Competitive players want to minimize the frequency this situation happens. You can see this attitude in various competitive gaming communities, one of the most notable being the competitive Smash Bros community and the issue of items in serious play.

If Pokemon were incapable of critting and every attack did its average amount of damage, then what? If you knew exactly when sleep would end every time, and every status could only be afflicted by status moves and would be applied 100% of the time? You'd basically have battles decided from the very first turn. Battles would play out almost identically every single time because misses and critical hits and things that are uncertain would be absent.

This is so unbelievably wrong it boggles the mind. Does every chess game play out the same because all the pieces move the same exact way every game? You seem to completely neglect the human element of the game. Sure, sleep ends the same turn every time, but wanna know something? Both players know this. That means both players can continue to make predictions on the others action.

It isn't like anyone would require a RNG to save them from a Garchomps EQ, people have ideas on how much damage that does and they predict accordingly. The only thing that would pop out of a RNGless Pokemon would surprisingly be a larger focus on mind games and prediction since people wouldn't be guessing about when they'll wake up or what range an attacks damage will fall into. Both players would have the same knowledge forcing them to go straight to prediction and mind games as opposed to the players guessing separately.

Theorectally, you could take two teams, line them up, and script out the results. You'd get something that would equate to chess, and personally, that's not fun to me. But in the end, the level of skill wouldn't change, just the level of certainty. In some cases, it could possibly drop in some levels because a person could 'go through the motions' and obtain the same outcome. There is no pressure because you know EXACTLY what is going to happen next.

Look above. Chess isn't scripted in the slightest. The only thing you could consider a scripted event in chess is when an outmatched player forfeits because they know they've lost before losing, but the competitive Pokemon community already has this. In fact, people constantly bitch about it and somehow compare it to bad sportsmanship.

In Pokemon, you cannot always guarantee the actions of the opponent. Skill in Pokemon is all about making your actions correctly based upon the opponents, and removing RNGs does nothing to affect this.

I believe that a person should have every right to utilize Double Team if he or she wishes. You know what? Prove to me that Double Team promotes luck in a way that hampers skill in the long run. Prove to me that it would be determental in the long run, not just in the short run. Luck keeps things interesting and exciting. It keeps people wanting to try again. Stop using that blanket statement "it promotes luck over skill", give me reasons, calculations. Tell me why Double Team exceeds that boundary of 'a certain amount of luck' even when we've proven that the time it takes to get to that point is incredibly risky and potentially determental to the team using the strategy.

The very definition of the move uses the word chance. If that doesn't show you the move is based around (and thus promotes) luck then I don't know how to go about convincing you.

And just for the record, Garchomp could potentially be detrimental to the team using it, doesn't mean it isn't very useful to those that use it intelligently.

On a team building note, many people go ahead and build teams to execute a strategy they want to use as opposed to building a team to handle every threat in the game. This can be fairly effective seeing on how difficult it is to attempt to cover that many weaknesses. In an environment with Evasion attacks, this won't nearly be as effective. If you don't come prepared with luck or some way to manage your opponents evasion usage, you're more likely then not going to lose regardless of the effectiveness of your strategy. Doesn't matter how genius your ideas are if you can't hit the opposition.

So how does Double Team improve the number of viable strategies again?

 

[astrohawke]

This I think, is where there is some misunderstanding. Saying that luck decreases skill is not the correct terminology. It isn't necessarily true, there is certainly skill in managing the probabilities. However, there is always the chance of a random miss causing what would otherwise be a solid win into a complete loss.

I would think that if you just lost due to a "random miss" your win wasn't so solid to begin with.

In fact, IMO, confusion would almost always be more effective in accomplishing these goals--and without adding an element of luck that can't be removed by mere switching.

Switching doesn't solve confusion. Let's say I confuse you and you don't want to take the risk so you switch and I just confuse you again on the switch. Eventually you'll still be forced to take the risk and attack or die slowly to entry hazards.

 

[Lord Alchemy]

Have you not read any of my prior posts? Regardless, I'll reiterate. Double Team is best used as a mind game of sorts. It is not good enough initially to rely on; in fact, by its nature you can't rely on it. By using the move, you're either trying to accomplish one of two things; add a bit more survivability to your main attacker or trying to throw your opponent off his game. I believe this was Double Team's intention. I don't believe it was ever meant to be a main form of defense.

Just a quick point:

If that was the intention, then we wouldn't see any Double Team Toxicstallers in the Battle Tower, which is supposed to be the in game emulation of a competitive battling environment (since battling is the only reason it is there).

**EDIT**

I would think that if you just lost due to a "random miss" your win wasn't so solid to begin with.

If I have something faster that will OHKO you, even if you have the ability to OHKO me, and I'm positive you don't have a focus sash, and I will proceed to sweep you, I would call that a solid win. That random miss can essentially be equated to a random critical hit, you could lose something you weren't supposed to, and the new hole in your team caused by this can cause a chain reaction that basically causes you to lose.

 

[Bliksem]

There is no reasonable excuse for being tl;dr. I am sorry for that.

Not a problem. Unfortunately, when it happens so often in a debate, it becomes slightly irritating. People repeat what has been said over and over, and the meaning of the debate becomes muddled. It's what irritates me about the 'promotes luck over skill' retort. That's all that's been said. There's been very little said about why, when I've given examples as to how that statement is untrue. If the statement were rather 'it promotes random chance', then it would be more accurate, and then it lies to the policy makers to decide whether the benefits I've stated outway the stigma attached. It would also lie to them the task of determining through theorycraft or testing whether our predictions are correct.

Still, you're devoting a moveslot to adding an element of chance that MIGHT help you. The risk-reward trade off is definitely there, but you have no control of the outcome; it's partly up to a RNG.

That's the player's choice and right. That's what I've been debating.

That's not going to convince me that the skill in using the move outweighs the additional luck element that it brings. In fact, IMO, confusion would almost always be more effective in accomplishing these goals--and without adding an element of luck that can't be removed by mere switching.

Yes, confusion would be a similar method of accomplishing this, but you're still not understanding my point. My intended goal is to give players as many options as possible, regardless of their viability.

It may turn out that Double Team is not a viable strategy, but if that's the case, it should be allowed because it would not have an adverse effect on the environment. If skilled players would not adopt the strategy, then what's the problem? Isn't the metagame determined by strategies the players utilize? If everyone is prepared for double team, but few people use it, it becomes like everything else; a strategy that you would be best prepared for, even if you don't see it.

What do you expect to happen, honestly? If Double Team were to enter the metagame at this point, what would you do? Would you go and laden your team with Double Team? Would you fill it with countermeasures in a brazen attempt to prove its centralization? Would you keep it largely the same and see how it compares to the other two scenarios? I personally already build my teams to perform in a variety of situations. I put my team through an extraordinary number of clauses so that no changes have to be made before a battle.

I do not use Double Team. I don't believe that it would provide my team any added benefit, mainly because it would not suit my team's synergy. I am not arguing this for personal benefit. I merely want to give All players as many options as feasibly possible without overcentralizing the game, as that would be counterproductive.

The philosophy that you quoted earlier needs to be expanded upon. I believe that smogon should allow for player styles as people will not play the same unless they are trying to emulate success. Thus, as I've said many times, we should be accepting of different strategies, unless they impact us in such a way that it takes extraordinary amounts of resources. Let the players' choices in battle dictate their skill, not their team, not their moves. Everyone wins, everyone loses, but in the end, the one who makes the best decisions will emerge the victor. That is how skill is determined. If I were to beat you in a battle, that does not mean that I am a better battler than you. If I consistantly beat you in several battles, that would prove that my decision making skills were generally superior or my luck was generally better. But if I consistantly beat you over an extended period of time, only that would prove that I had more skill than you. Don't view this as a challenge; I don't claim to have fought or beaten you, nor should that even be a factor in this debate.

If you don't believe that Double Team adds skill to be included, then I honestly can't do anything outside mind control to change your opinion. All that I ask is that you acknowledge the fact that the move can be used skillfully. I also ask that you acknowledge the calculations posted that dictate that Double Team's defensive capabilities are inferior to those already in play. Finally, I ask that you explain why giving players this choice would adversely affect the metagame, because I can only see positives in the long run.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Switching doesn't solve confusion. Let's say I confuse you and you don't want to take the risk so you switch and I just confuse you again on the switch. Eventually you'll still be forced to take the risk and attack or die slowly to entry hazards.

True, but switching does get rid of the confusion. You would still have to try and confuse me again. Switching cannot, however, get rid of increased Evasion. That was the point I was making.

EDIT (didn't see Bliksem's response):

If you don't believe that Double Team adds skill to be included, then I honestly can't do anything outside mind control to change your opinion. All that I ask is that you acknowledge the fact that the move can be used skillfully.

You've yet to convince me of that, to be honest.

I also ask that you acknowledge the calculations posted that dictate that Double Team's defensive capabilities are inferior to those already in play.

...I questioned that? All I ever said on that was that Double Team on Garchomp would be annoying. I never said it would be effective. In fact I posted that mostly as a joke.

Finally, I ask that you explain why giving players this choice would adversely affect the metagame, because I can only see positives in the long run.

Again, we might have a misunderstanding. I wouldn't keep Evasion banned for its potential effect on the metagame. I keep it banned on the principle that it introduces luck into the game and doesn't promote skill, therefore it doesn't even merit testing in a competitive game.

However, I wouldn't pull my hair out if the decision was ultimately made to test it.

 

[astrohawke]

True, but switching does get rid of the confusion. You would still have to try and confuse me again. Switching cannot, however, get rid of increased Evasion. That was the point I was making.

I don't have to try. Confusion is 100% and I catch you on the switch unless you have a bunch of own tempo pokemon. You can switch as much as you want but in the end you're still gonna have a pokemon that's confused out on the field and take that 50% chance.

 

[Syberia]

If the statement were rather 'it promotes random chance', then it would be more accurate, and then it lies to the policy makers to decide whether the benefits I've stated outway the stigma attached.

If you're going to argue semantics, fine. A "random chance" is still luck, depending on which way it goes. And if you're relying on "random chance" to win your battles, or at least keep one of your pokemon alive longer, I can't possibly see how that equates to skill. You're pretty much asking the RNG to play for you, and forgive you if you mess up.

I don't have to try. Confusion is 100% and I catch you on the switch unless you have a bunch of own tempo pokemon. You can switch as much as you want but in the end you're still gonna have a pokemon that's confused out on the field and take that 50% chance.

You're not going to use Confuse Ray 32 straight turns in a row. That would be a dumb waste of all of your move's PP. A smart player can still guess when you're not going to use it, and switch accordingly. So there's still some skill involved. In the case of Double Team, the opposing player doesn't even have a chance to control it.

 

[astrohawke]

If I have something faster that will OHKO you, even if you have the ability to OHKO me, and I'm positive you don't have a focus sash, and I will proceed to sweep you, I would call that a solid win. That random miss can essentially be equated to a random critical hit, you could lose something you weren't supposed to, and the new hole in your team caused by this can cause a chain reaction that basically causes you to lose.

That's still not what I call a solid win if it all came down to that single attack where both of you could have OHKOed each other and you happened to be faster but missed. Perhaps instead of using the turn to DT, he could have just attacked and killed you on the switch anyway.

You're not going to use Confuse Ray 32 straight turns in a row. That would be a dumb waste of all of your move's PP. A smart player can still guess when you're not going to use it, and switch accordingly. So there's still some skill involved. In the case of Double Team, the opposing player doesn't even have a chance to control it.

Why would it be a dumb thing to do if my opponent is too scared of the 50% chance to attack me? If he's unwilling to take the chance, then I don't see why I wouldn't just keep using confuse ray and let rocks kill him.

And what do you mean by "control"? How exactly would you "control" confusion aside from switching? Considering as long as you keep switching, I can keep confusing you.

 

[Syberia]

Or he could *gasp* not switch, then switch on a turn when you don't use C-Ray.

That's still not what I call a solid win if it all came down to that single attack where both of you could have OHKOed each other and you happened to be faster but missed. Perhaps instead of using the turn to DT, he could have just attacked and killed you on the switch anyway.

How is that not a solid win? If you play the battle out and it gets to that point, then except for luck, you'll win.

 

[astrohawke]

Or he could *gasp* not switch, then switch on a turn when you don't use C-Ray.

If he doesn't switch then he has to attack...And if he attacks then he can suffer from hax. Hence confusion causes luck that also cannot be controlled. Confusion clause please!