On chance, banning moves and the Garchomp problem

[IggyBot]

You're overgeneralizing things a bit. Unless both players are capable of reading each other's minds and also have every single possible result of every single possible move and set combination not only memorized but recallable at any moment, even Chess has a tiny to middling bit of luck in it.

In chess, you may get lucky if your opponent makes a mistake, which allows you to win the game. In pokemon, is it you making a mistake when a critical hit takes out a key pokemon, that wouldn't of been KO'd otherwise? Is it you making a mistake if you make the right switch into an Ice attack and you get frozen? Obviously not.

The other problem is that, the more you remove from the game, the less you're playing Pokémon and the more you're playing "Shoddybattle Online Monster Fight Simulator."

How are we not playing the game simply by adding an additional ruleset to it?

There's also the fact that a lot of players overreact to the "problems" caused by the "luck moves." Case in point, if I use Double Team, the opponent has to miss me (x+1) times for it to pay off (where x is the number of times I've used Double Team). Otherwise, I wasted the turn spent using it. If the opponent misses me once per usage, we're still stuck on neutral grounds as if I never used the move. Let's not forget the fact that I have to sacrifice a moveslot in a game where 4 isn't nearly enough as it is.

On certain pokemon, evasion moves aren't worth using because of the "4 moveslot syndrome" that you mentioned. However, there are many pokemon that are happy to sit there and boost evasion. And it's not frail, powerful pokemon that I'm afraid of here. It's pokemon like Suicune, Cresselia, and other bulky pokemon that can actually take the attack when they get hit, and recover off the damage. Using something like Double Team on Lucario, where you aren't very likely to get more than maybe 2 DT's isn't the smarest. But when you can max your evasion, and have plenty of defense leftover to tank those hits that get through, why wouldn't you?

On that note, if I use Close Combat, I will kill Blissey 100% of the time. If I use Fissure, I will kill Blissey 30% of the time. Which one is more powerful in this case? What are we so afraid of? Keep in mind, I have to sacrifice a moveslot to use something that has only a CHANCE of killing the opponent. Just the same, using something like a Quick Claw is effectively like holding nothing at all 75% of the time.

If you had read the topic on OHKO's in Policy Review, or had any common sense for that matter, you would know that using a OHKO on something that all ready has a ton of OHKO power is stupid. But what about pokemon like Gliscor? Gliscor can switch in and effectivly shut down many physically based pokemon. When those pokemon switch, Gliscor gets a FREE turn to OHKO your incoming pokemon 30% of the time.

So, my first major point is that the moves in question aren't overpowered in any way, they're in fact quite underpowered. Does the problem lie in "Bad" players beating "Good" players by virtue of using these moves when they don't "deserve" the victory? Well, why don't we ban Garchomp, Gengar, and Celebi, because I'm more than certain they've mindlessly let unskilled people win more than their fair share? Is the problem the fact that the moves are THAT bad that we shouldn't even be handing out the option of using them? Well, why don't we ban Magikarp, Caterpie, and Unown in that case? They're not good at all, and nobody should be allowed to win using them by that logic.

So now OHKO moves, and evasion boosters are terrible attacks? Bad enough to be put on the same level as Caterpie and Magikarp? But think, what benefit do you get by using Caterpie and Magikarp successfully? None. What do you gain by landing a OHKO, or boosting your evasion enough so that your opponent's chances of hitting you are slim to none? You gain a game changing advantage based purely on luck.

The second point is that there are ways of managing each of these things that we're overlooking. How many Skarm or Forry players do we have, here? How many of them are actually using the abilities the designers have granted them? Oh, hey, what do you know, they're unable to be killed by OHKO moves, that's very helpful. Too bad they basically have no ability in today's game.

Yes, I agree that Forretress and Skarmory's abilitys are pretty usless right now. But I don't see "giving Forretress and Skarmory's ability a use" as an actual reason to unban OHKO's, considering that they're all ready incredible pokemon.

 

[SubVersion]

Anecdotal evidence *rolleyes* You just got very unlucky in that one instance. That's all. Why should we ban moves just because you were the victim of bad fortune once?

Are you kidding? Yes, I got very unlucky in that one instance, but the point is that with OHKO moves allowed, bullshit like that can and will happen. It doesn't matter that my evidence is anecdotal, because it perfectly illustrates why you can't say "OHKO moves have such low accuracy they'll never matter" - because they will, and often - and how the presence of OHKO moves make the game significantly less competitive. I did nothing wrong and yet I was stripped of three Pokemon.

As for your last sentence (ignoring all the rubbish that came before it), we should ban moves because the possibility of such bad fortune exists even if the player on the receiving end is a thousand times better skill-wise than the OHKO player and makes all the right choices throughout the match.

To compare OHKO moves to a common situation, they have as much chance of hitting as a paralyzed foe has against an Air Slash Togekiss - 30%. Now imagine that, should the opponent ever not flinch or be paralyzed, Togekiss dies instantly regardless of what Pokemon it is facing. That is essentially what OHKO moves do: 70% of the time you wont achieve anything, but 30% isn't exactly rare (just think of how often you do actually manage to hit a flinchax Togekiss) and you're going to lose a Pokemon because of it.

Please don't brush off fair points as "lol :rolleyes:" instead of actually rebutting them, because if you don't actually have a rebuttal then you shouldn't be taking issue with my point.

 

[Broken Loose]

In chess, you may get lucky if your opponent makes a mistake, which allows you to win the game. In pokemon, is it you making a mistake when a critical hit takes out a key pokemon, that wouldn't of been KO'd otherwise? Is it you making a mistake if you make the right switch into an Ice attack and you get frozen? Obviously not.

How are we not playing the game simply by adding an additional ruleset to it?

On certain pokemon, evasion moves aren't worth using because of the "4 moveslot syndrome" that you mentioned. However, there are many pokemon that are happy to sit there and boost evasion. And it's not frail, powerful pokemon that I'm afraid of here. It's pokemon like Suicune, Cresselia, and other bulky pokemon that can actually take the attack when they get hit, and recover off the damage. Using something like Double Team on Lucario, where you aren't very likely to get more than maybe 2 DT's isn't the smarest. But when you can max your evasion, and have plenty of defense leftover to tank those hits that get through, why wouldn't you?

If you had read the topic on OHKO's in Policy Review, or had any common sense for that matter, you would know that using a OHKO on something that all ready has a ton of OHKO power is stupid. But what about pokemon like Gliscor? Gliscor can switch in and effectivly shut down many physically based pokemon. When those pokemon switch, Gliscor gets a FREE turn to OHKO your incoming pokemon 30% of the time.

So now OHKO moves, and evasion boosters are terrible attacks? Bad enough to be put on the same level as Caterpie and Magikarp? But think, what benefit do you get by using Caterpie and Magikarp successfully? None. What do you gain by landing a OHKO, or boosting your evasion enough so that your opponent's chances of hitting you are slim to none? You gain a game changing advantage based purely on luck.

Yes, I agree that Forretress and Skarmory's abilitys are pretty usless right now. But I don't see "giving Forretress and Skarmory's ability a use" as an actual reason to unban OHKO's, considering that they're all ready incredible pokemon.

Congratulations. As a moderator, official Team Rater, and tutor of this community, you proceeded to dispute my claims by saying that I don't "have any common sense."

The breaking point between "steadily removing things from the game" and "it's not the same game anymore" isn't a solid line. Right now, we have moves removed from the game, Pokémon removed from the game, mechanics removed from the game (strict damage clause), and items removed from the game. I'd say that's pretty far from the source material as is, and perhaps we could consider a solution other than removing X problem from the game.


Now, when you use Double Team, keep in mind that you have to give up 25% of your attacking and defensive options for it. Certainly, Suicune would be an unbreakable wall with a few DTs under its belt, but the average Suicune only has 1 attack move on its set. Making Suicune harder to hit isn't going to solve the problems it has, such as being entirely walled by anything in the game that resists or is immune to Surf. Just the same, Cresselia's suggested sets ALL have multiple options in at least one moveslot. Where are you planning to stick Double Team? When you finally find a place for DT to go, you're basically left with a Shuckle that knows Moonlight-- completely impervious to harm, but also nothing but setup fodder for anybody with a clear idea of the situation.

The same logic applies to OHKO moves. Suicune has the choice of Ice Beam, Surf, and Hidden Power Electric for its offenses, and it has a hell of a time finding room for even more than one of those. If such a case arises that somebody decides to throw Sheer Cold into the mix, they've just sacrificed one of the standard defensive necessities or one of their only ways to deal damage in favor of a very, very slim chance to take out an opponent's team member. Just the same, OHKO moves on Gliscor aren't going to help it take down Bronzong or any Ice Beamer with 95+ speed anytime soon. It's too unreliable, and it's already done better with other, better attacks.

Most people play Pokémon in a ladder setting, which means that people relying on high-risk gambles like these will suffer in the long run. In tournaments, switching to a double-elimination bracket or allowing 2 out of 3 battles will effectively nullify these issues in nearly the same way. The point was brought up that by allowing these things, better players will become X% more susceptible to being lucksacked and worse players will magically become X% better. That's backwards logic. Good and bad players alike will all have a 70% failure rate on OHKO moves. Bad players are more prone to being wiped out by using DT because they won't know how to effectively manage it (who can use it and when). This will only make the gap between the two groups more apparent.

I see a lot of fearmongering over the possibility of somebody winning or gaining an advantage when they weren't allowed/supposed to at the time. The odds of the "wrong" person winning a tournament or topping the ladder are so astronomically slim they're not worth mentioning. Do you seriously believe that any 12-year-old could just boot up the game and trash the top players with these things allowed? I know that I've gone on random PBR Wi-Fi and crushed those SAME players with UU dudes while they're using entirely Ubers teams AND OHKO moves AND Evasion moves AND without the luxuries of Sleep, Freeze, and Strict Damage Clause. I know that we have warstories of people doing the same thing at tournaments. The better players will still win, if they're still good. You have nothing to fear, unless you doubt your own ability to face these things in combat.

 

[Bourbon]

in my opinion, bulky pokemon using double team isn't that big of a deal. It's be double team baton passers that would break the game. Oh look, they just baton passed +6 evasion to their SD luke, or their Garchomp, or their Deoxys-E , gg , you lose now. Taunt and Roar can miss so chances are they'll be able to pull it off pretty easily even without Taunt on their baton passer.

OHKO moves I am on the fence about. On wifi this guy had a Sheer Cold lapras, and it killed my bulky water that should have countered it. On something as tough as lapras, it has the defenses to try sheer cold several times. Sure, you're sacrificing type coverage, but does it matter when you have a chance of OHKOing your counters anyways? During the time he could have 2HKOed my pokemon with Tbolt or whatever, he could have tried sheer cold twice, so it's not like you're wasting too many turns just blindly spamming ohko moves all over the place.

 

[Broken Loose]

in my opinion, bulky pokemon using double team isn't that big of a deal. It's be double team baton passers that would break the game. Oh look, they just baton passed +6 evasion to their SD luke, or their Garchomp, or their Deoxys-E , gg , you lose now. Taunt and Roar can miss so chances are they'll be able to pull it off pretty easily even without Taunt on their baton passer.

A valid point, but just the same, a lot of people neglect to realize that there are 2 people trying to win every battle. In the same amount of time it takes to DT+6 and then Baton Pass, I can switch in a spiker, set 3 layers of Spikes, 2 of Toxic Spikes, and 1 Stealth Rock. Or I can switch, Mean Look with the switchee, optionally baton pass to my Perish Song user (or simply use the Mean Look user), stall for X turns, and murderize something on the enemy team.

Here's a fun little fact: Hitting a +6 Evasion opponent is easier than hitting ANY opponent with an OHKO move. It actually doesn't make much sense to say that one is overpowered without implying that the other isn't.

 

[IggyBot]

Congratulations. As a moderator, official Team Rater, and tutor of this community, you proceeded to dispute my claims by saying that I don't "have any common sense."

There was much more to my post then that, and what I was referring to was a lack of common sense. That comment wasn't ment to "dispute" anything and I backed up the rest of the paragraph with a valid argument.

The breaking point between "steadily removing things from the game" and "it's not the same game anymore" isn't a solid line. Right now, we have moves removed from the game, Pokémon removed from the game, mechanics removed from the game (strict damage clause), and items removed from the game. I'd say that's pretty far from the source material as is, and perhaps we could consider a solution other than removing X problem from the game.

I didn't know you could do more than 100% damage in the game. If anything, strict damage clause IS staying true to the carts. Without strict damage clause, you could switch your 10% Uxie into Heracross's Close Combat, and run the damage calculation to find out what item Heracross is running. As far as I know, no items are banned either. So as far as removing things from the cart, the only thing banned right now are attacks. Pokemon are banned to create a balanced metagame. If you think the metagame can be balanced without banning any pokemon, take a look at the top 75% of ubers (which is this metagame) and the OU tier list. There is a huge difference with just a few pokemon banned.

Now, when you use Double Team, keep in mind that you have to give up 25% of your attacking and defensive options for it. Certainly, Suicune would be an unbreakable wall with a few DTs under its belt, but the average Suicune only has 1 attack move on its set. Making Suicune harder to hit isn't going to solve the problems it has, such as being entirely walled by anything in the game that resists or is immune to Surf. Just the same, Cresselia's suggested sets ALL have multiple options in at least one moveslot. Where are you planning to stick Double Team? When you finally find a place for DT to go, you're basically left with a Shuckle that knows Moonlight-- completely impervious to harm, but also nothing but setup fodder for anybody with a clear idea of the situation.

Suicune could use Double Team over Sleep Talk, and continue to boost it's SpA with Calm Mind. Even pokemon that resist water aren't going to stand up to a +6 Surf. Cresselia could use Double Team over almost any of her attacks, since she has options. None of Cresselia's support attacks are definitivly better than another. Thunderwave, Reflect and Double Team both have their pros and cons. Keep in mind that just like Suicune, Cresselia could run both CM and Double Team, or Charge Beam to boost her attack power.

The same logic applies to OHKO moves. Suicune has the choice of Ice Beam, Surf, and Hidden Power Electric for its offenses, and it has a hell of a time finding room for even more than one of those. If such a case arises that somebody decides to throw Sheer Cold into the mix, they've just sacrificed one of the standard defensive necessities or one of their only ways to deal damage in favor of a very, very slim chance to take out an opponent's team member. Just the same, OHKO moves on Gliscor aren't going to help it take down Bronzong or any Ice Beamer with 95+ speed anytime soon. It's too unreliable, and it's already done better with other, better attacks.

If the ice beamer with 95+ base speed is switching in, Fissure could sure help a hell of a lot in taking it down. 30% isn't "never hits". It doesn't have to hit 100%, or even 50% of the time to be effective. All a OHKO has to do is hit once throughout the entire battle to be a devastating, game changing attack.

EDIT- Last I knew, Earthquake isn't helping Gliscor take on Bronzong, Ice Fang isn't helping Gliscor take on Bronzong, Aerial Ace isn't helping Gliscor take on Bronzong. What exactly does Gliscor do to Bronzong anyways?

Most people play Pokémon in a ladder setting, which means that people relying on high-risk gambles like these will suffer in the long run. In tournaments, switching to a double-elimination bracket or allowing 2 out of 3 battles will effectively nullify these issues in nearly the same way. The point was brought up that by allowing these things, better players will become X% more susceptible to being lucksacked and worse players will magically become X% better. That's backwards logic. Good and bad players alike will all have a 70% failure rate on OHKO moves. Bad players are more prone to being wiped out by using DT because they won't know how to effectively manage it (who can use it and when). This will only make the gap between the two groups more apparent.

I don't recall saying that any of the attacks in question make bad players magically "better", but that they allow bad players a larger chance of winning against better players because it forces both sides to rely on luck, rather than skill.

I see a lot of fearmongering over the possibility of somebody winning or gaining an advantage when they weren't allowed/supposed to at the time. The odds of the "wrong" person winning a tournament or topping the ladder are so astronomically slim they're not worth mentioning. Do you seriously believe that any 12-year-old could just boot up the game and trash the top players with these things allowed? I know that I've gone on random PBR Wi-Fi and crushed those SAME players with UU dudes while they're using entirely Ubers teams AND OHKO moves AND Evasion moves AND without the luxuries of Sleep, Freeze, and Strict Damage Clause. I know that we have warstories of people doing the same thing at tournaments. The better players will still win, if they're still good. You have nothing to fear, unless you doubt your own ability to face these things in combat.

This paragraph has some huge exaggerations. First of all, I never stated anywhere that Double Team and OHKO attacks would allow someone to turn on the game for the first time, and beat one of the best players in the game. However, there are players who may not be the best, and may not be able to beat the best, but when using Double Team/OHKO attacks, they change the game simply because again, they are now forcing the game to come down to luck for both sides rather than skill.

I can say right now that I have been in many matches where I am the better player, and luck has caused me to lose. So the chances are slim, so what? Why not make the chances slimmer if possible.

 

[Bourbon]

I think that both of the moves are overpowered, just the OHKO moves are less of a problem in my opinion. I never said I thought OHKO moves were fair, they aren't, as I outlined in my post above. I just think double team is less fair, because something bulky like Togekiss or Celebi could baton pass at least a couple double teams to a powerful sweeper like Garchomp. Obviously, Garchomp isn't sacrificing any moveslots for this tactic, and the only sacrifice Celebi and Togekiss are making is that they aren't baton passing Calm Minds or Nasty Plots. Now, a lot of people think Yache Chomp is broken now, but how about one that has several double teams? yeah, good luck trying to hit it twices before it destroys your entire team.

And setting up spikes and stuff in the face of such a serious threat like a double team passer is very, very stupid. People lose games doing stuff like this every day, I can't count how many games I've played where people set up rocks or something while I am setting up a sweep.

So to summarize my points:

-Double team is more broken then OHKO, because you'll have sweepers with evasion running amok.

-OHKO is really cheap, but it does take up a precious moveslot. However, these moves discourage strategy. Why predict when you can just use a OHKO move and have a chance at killing whatever comes in regardless of what it is?

 

[Chou Toshio]

In chess, you may get lucky if your opponent makes a mistake, which allows you to win the game. In pokemon, is it you making a mistake when a critical hit takes out a key pokemon, that wouldn't of been KO'd otherwise? Is it you making a mistake if you make the right switch into an Ice attack and you get frozen? Obviously not.

The opponent's making a mistake in chess isn't luck, it's a difference in skill level.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Wrong because to be good at something is to be focused. If for whatever reason they are lacking focus for when they usually have it does not mean they are of less skill, it means in that particular moment in time and space, they are not to their usual standard.

Also because I doubt most people don't know what logical fallacy is without looking it up, anyone who brings up "going with what Nintendo allows" also needs to address "there's no sleep clause...."

 

[the_artic_one]

Nintendo has used sleep clause in the past, why do you think it's included in all console games?

 

[EeveeTrainer]

If "Evasion Clause" is selected as a rule in a battle on ShoddyBattle, all evasion modifiers should be nullified (set to 0). This includes Double Team, Minimize, Sand Veil, Snow Cloak, Bright Powder. Forgetting about Sand Veil and Bright Powder in Evasion Clause is a terrible inconsistency. It would render Sand Veil as a useless ability, but this is not without precedent in our current metagame: Skarmory's "STURDY" is also completely useless with OHKO clause in effect.

For has long as there has been Evasion Clause, I've always wondered why Bright Powder and Sand Veil have been allowed.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Nintendo has sleep clause SOMETIMES.

 

[the_artic_one]

Because you can't turn off sand veil in the actual game (not even in the console games) and changing that in a simulator would make the simulation inaccurate.

Nintendo has sleep clause SOMETIMES.

Yeah, JAA had sleep and freeze clause while the recent showdown had neither. Showdown also banned a bunch of legends (and everything that evolves past level 50) while JAA only banned event-only pokes that had not been released in America. Going with what Nintendo allows is a bad idea, but "there's no sleep clause" isn't exactly the best argument agianst it.

 

[Kittymew]

10% status? swift-like accuracy on moves on which it was not intended? how are these things NOT fanboy invention?

Also, yes, I know Kittymew was the person suggesting that stuff, but that was what that statement was most directed toward.

I told you the entire thing was hypothetical, and if you would think about it a little harder instead of insulting people, you might understand it. Good god has this forum gone downhill -_-;

 

[ANinyMouse]

I told you the entire thing was hypothetical, and if you would think about it a little harder instead of insulting people, you might understand it. Good god has this forum gone downhill -_-;

I understood you perfectly, Kittymew; I just don't agree with you in the slightest.

If we're going to completely alter game mechanics, moves and abilities to try and "eliminate luck" we may as well say Smogon's server is a mod server like CAP. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[swordmaster789]

To address the point of pokemon like Lapras which threaten Sturdy pokes, many sturdy OHKO-able pokemon are slow. If they manage to take down one poke, the incoming poke should be able to take it down. The odds of OHKO moves hitting in a row are way too rare anyway, and if anything, the odds are against the pokemon using the move, so it's more of a benefit to the opposing battler.

Also, due to the vast number of double teamers in the battle tower, I've been using a Butterfree to complement my team. It's been working wonders. :P Just pointing it out as another example of how certain pokemon fill niches. That usefulness is taken away when a part of the game is banned/removed, such as the Sturdy Pokemon argument.

 

[Invective]

OHKO moves I am on the fence about. On wifi this guy had a Sheer Cold lapras, and it killed my bulky water that should have countered it. On something as tough as lapras, it has the defenses to try sheer cold several times. Sure, you're sacrificing type coverage, but does it matter when you have a chance of OHKOing your counters anyways? During the time he could have 2HKOed my pokemon with Tbolt or whatever, he could have tried sheer cold twice, so it's not like you're wasting too many turns just blindly spamming ohko moves all over the place.

just going to add something to this.

walrein can learn sheer cold as well.
so with that in mind, imagine a stallrein with sheer cold over toxic. toxic doesnt hit steels, while sheer cold can hit every thing except pokeys with the sturdy ability. however, most pokemon with sturdy are weak to walreins STAB surf (steelix, shuckle, donphan for example) or have a much better ability (magnezone). the only ones who dont fit these descriptions are skarmory and forretress dont have te SpD to take repeated STAB surf from a 95 base SpA.
with that said,
do you know how hard it is to take down a stallrein? itll be even harder when 30% of the time, your "counter" is OHKOed. if it is able to set up, it will, on average, net 2 kills (8pp X 30% accuracy = 2.4).

EDIT:

The odds of OHKO moves hitting in a row are way too rare anyway, and if anything, the odds are against the pokemon using the move, so it's more of a benefit to the opposing battler.

actually, the odds are 9%. which, is just one percent less than getting a burn, freeze, or paralysis with FT, IB, or TB respectively. but, which scenario is more preferable?. 10% chance to either burn, freeze, or paralyze an opponent, or 9% chance to OHKO two of your opponents pokemon. personally , id take the one where i take out 1/3 of the opponnents team.

 

[Syberia]

To address the point of pokemon like Lapras which threaten Sturdy pokes, many sturdy OHKO-able pokemon are slow. If they manage to take down one poke, the incoming poke should be able to take it down. The odds of OHKO moves hitting in a row are way too rare anyway, and if anything, the odds are against the pokemon using the move, so it's more of a benefit to the opposing battler.

So you wait until you can get Lapras back in safely, against something else that must switch, and fire off another Sheer Cold. It's still no risk to the user.

Gliscor can OHKO Bronzong with Guillotine, btw.

 

[ViVi]

A valid point, but just the same, a lot of people neglect to realize that there are 2 people trying to win every battle. In the same amount of time it takes to DT+6 and then Baton Pass, I can switch in a spiker, set 3 layers of Spikes, 2 of Toxic Spikes, and 1 Stealth Rock. Or I can switch, Mean Look with the switchee, optionally baton pass to my Perish Song user (or simply use the Mean Look user), stall for X turns, and murderize something on the enemy team.

I imagine this would be what they term 'over-centeralization' no?

 

[Ancien Régime]

Also, due to the vast number of double teamers in the battle tower, I've been using a Butterfree to complement my team. It's been working wonders. :P Just pointing it out as another example of how certain pokemon fill niches. That usefulness is taken away when a part of the game is banned/removed, such as the Sturdy Pokemon argument.

So we should make the game worse for everyone because having stuff like DT makes a certain set that would be completely useless without DT in the game useful?

May I ask why we fucking care that Sturdy is a useless ability in the current metagame?"

How does the viability of Sturdy, in and of itself, make the OU metagame better?

Serioulsly, let's just use BT rules. Happy now?

In the same amount of time it takes to DT+6 and then Baton Pass, I can switch in a spiker, set 3 layers of Spikes, 2 of Toxic Spikes, and 1 Stealth Rock. Or I can switch, Mean Look with the switchee, optionally baton pass to my Perish Song user (or simply use the Mean Look user), stall for X turns, and murderize something on the enemy team.

Okay, except I switched to Luke, which resists Toxic Spikes and SR, to Restalk Cune, which rests off the poison, CM Cress, which resists all of those, or DD Roost Mence, which can heal off SR damage and take hits with 6 DTs backing it up, or etc, etc, etc.

Of course, maybe if I'm a smart player, I wait till I've gotten rid of your DT counter and then set up, knowing that unlike many other strats, you really can't stop it once your designated counter is gone.

 

[beez]

skilled players will benefit in the long term by playing against shitty players who need to rely on luck. anyone who has ever played or understood poker will know this. i think the original poster is right and i agree with him.

 

[Broken Loose]

I imagine this would be what they term 'over-centeralization' no?

Okay, except I switched to Luke, which resists Toxic Spikes and SR, to Restalk Cune, which rests off the poison, CM Cress, which resists all of those, or DD Roost Mence, which can heal off SR damage and take hits with 6 DTs backing it up, or etc, etc, etc.

Of course, maybe if I'm a smart player, I wait till I've gotten rid of your DT counter and then set up, knowing that unlike many other strats, you really can't stop it once your designated counter is gone.

My example was hypothetical. There are a billion things I could do in the 7 turns of setup you're taking to start your machine, some of which won't require any setup at all (Machamp/other Choice Xed counter), some of which require less setup than the turn usage required of the DTer (SD Lucario/Garchomp/Heracross, NP Azelf/Infernape/Ambipom).

This is the same reason why people using Skill Swap teams in Doubles tend to fail. They forgot that the opponent was trying to kill them while they were busy setting up. Are you really going to bank on Double Team causing a miss every time you use it? DT doesn't even actually have positive results until you've used it more than 3 times. Anything less and you'll still get hit the majority of the time.

 

[Ancien Régime]

skilled players will benefit in the long term by playing against shitty players who need to rely on luck. anyone who has ever played or understood poker will know this. i think the original poster is right and i agree with him.

Of course, but luck is what turns say, a 99.5% win percentage against shitty players into a 95% win percentage against the same caliber of player.

 

[the_artic_one]

skilled players will benefit in the long term by playing against shitty players who need to rely on luck. anyone who has ever played or understood poker will know this. i think the original poster is right and i agree with him.

True but does that mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce luck within reason?

For example, the current popular format at poker tournaments is Texas Hold 'em which has a greatly reduced element of luck in comparison to Draw poker due to some of the cards being shared between players. Isn't this analogous to removing minor amounts of luck (evasion and ohko moves) while leaving in things like crits and misses?

 

[yayece]

For example, the current popular format at poker tournaments is Texas Hold 'em which has a greatly reduced element of luck in comparison to Draw poker due to some of the cards being shared between players. Isn't this analogous to removing minor amounts of luck (evasion and ohko moves) while leaving in things like crits and misses?

I would argue that draw poker also requires *more* skill as well, since the players need to be even better mind readers.

You could extend that analogy to Pokemon as well. More skill is required to take into account the statistics that Double Team and OHKO moves introduce. It's not unlike Amazing Ampharos's work on "switch rate"
(http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29662)

Bottom line, I have an engineering background so I understand probability and statistics better than most. I know that in the long run that better players will win more often than weaker players, luck or no.