Critical Hits (and other such sources of "hax")

[LonelyNess]

With the decision that we don't necessarily have to follow game mechanics in the pursuit of creating a balanced game, I think it necessary to bring up Critical Hits and other sources of luck (such as the secondary effects of moves like Flamethrower and Ice Beam). Simply put: no one likes to be in complete control of a match and have the entire thing ruined by a single crit, freeze, or something that is completely in the control of the RNG. You can say that Crits are a balancing factor, making the use of defensive boosters less viable, but is anyone really using Critical Hits as their only defense against Curse Snorlax? Against Cosmic Power Jirachi? Anyone who is worth their salt in this game has concrete answers to these Pokemon WITHOUT having to rely on crits... and I personally think that the benefit of removing crits (i.e. maybe now we can be comfortable in our ability to switch in Pokemon against opponents because no matter what, if we're meant to survive an attack, we'll survive) far outweigh the benefits of keeping them in the game.

Anyway, just as a disclaimer, this is in no way an "official" vote... just wanting to see where everyone's opinion's lay.

Edit: everyone needs to revote, I forgot to make it public.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

If we're not going to follow exact in game mechanics what is the reason for keeping crits in the game?

As far as I see it I guess you could reason a few things:
a. Crits deviate too far from the game. We only want to deviate from mechanics in extreme circumstances
b. Slippery slope with other luck based mechanics
c. crits are beneficial to the game by balance things like cosmic power and calm mind

As far as a. is concerned I would partly agree that removing crits may be going a little too far in terms of changing game mechanics. However I'd approach the situation in a cost benefit analysis sort of way. Removing crits from the game serves an extreme competitive purpose. Critical hits are a gamebreaking luck factor. They ruin perfectly good matches and serve absolutely no competitive purpose (I'll return to that some more in point c). So as far as point a. goes I would have to say the extreme deviation from the game is worth the competitive upside gained through ridding the game of such a gamebreaking mechanic.

With point b. I'd say that changing luck mechanics should absolutely stop with critical hits. Every other luck factor is a benefit of using a specific move over another. They give users incentive to use more tbolts/thunders or more ice beams. Basing luck mechanics in moveset choices is competitively acceptable in my eyes.

As far as c. goes, Lonelyness outlined it pretty well. Critical hits are not a legitimate strategy to attempting to take down defensive boosts. If you want to rely on a crit to beat CM Jirachi have fun with that.

So with the *extreme* improvement in the competitiveness of the game gained through getting rid of crits, I have to vote yes.

I know because of point a. that this will probably go nowhere, but I can't vote and argue against something I believe would greatly improve the game as someone who wants the game to be as competitive as possible.

 

[M Dragon]

We dont have to strictly follow game mechanics, but I think removing something as important as CHs is going too far, and a huge mistake.
Simulator mechanics should be as similar to the cartridge mechanics as possible. I would support minor changes (ex: classic sleep clause) for making the metagame better, but removing CHs is removing a major part of competitive pokemon, and that is a huge mistake.

 

[ENZ0]

As Jabba said I favor a no crit(hax) game; I voted "yes" because luck doesn't really bring skill to the table, and I personally prefer a fair game. Even though it does increase competitiveness, which Smogon strives to do in conjunction with following the cartridge game as close as possible, I can already predict the amount of opposition to this when it comes down to the official decision. I have to admit though taking crits out of the game might be going a little far, since it's a huge part of the game. As I said, this reflects what would be ideal in competition, but it's a drastic change.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

From a competitive standpoint, I don't think critical hits make the game better in any way, and if we want to make the game more competitive, we should remove them if we can. This change, however, is different from any mechanics changes we have made so far. I think it's also fair to say that Gamefreak intended critical hits to be part of the game, unlike the Acid Weather glitch (although one cannot actually "prove" this). From a purely objective standpoint, we're changing mechanics in a way that Gamefreak never has (unlike Sleep Clause).

Giving ourselves the right to change the game mechanics as we please doesn't necessarily mean we can't and/or shouldn't place our own limits on how we change the mechanics; perhaps we should establish whether or not we want to impose such restrictions before making this and other similar decisions.

 

[Synre]

Mentioned this to what I suspect will be the core of the support for this on IRC, but for what it's worth:

I think this is an extremely liberal interpretation of the results of the poll about changing mechanics. I find the "we aren't even playing Pokemon anymore!!" arguments to be a really irritating catch-all most of the time they're used, but critical hits are over "the line" of what is fair game for us to change to me. In my view, it's our job to make the game as competitive as we can within the restraints we're given unless a situation arises where a significant and probably inadvertant mistake by the developers forces us to take an action in order to keep the game as competitive as it can be. To me we're changing a constraint unnecessarily here, and I can't support that.

I voted no on the previous poll because I wanted to give us the ability to keep issues open in extreme situations. Stuff like Acid Rain or the Custap glitch(apparently...) which both exist only in a small amount of games and were pretty obviously not intended even before being removed in subsequent games in the series. Stuff like keeping the discussion of implementing Sleep Clause's classic interpretation(though I'll likely abstain on the vote) on the table. I hadn't expected threads like this one to show up as a result of that poll, and if I had, I might have changed my vote(not that it would have made any difference, of course). I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly where I think the line we're crossing is, but this seems like a rather significant change to institute, considering that it is based on something that's clearly working the way the designers intended it to(CH rate hasn't changed in about a decade now) and has an impact on the game that is very subjective.

I know it's that impact on the game thing that you guys are arguing for the change here based on, and I half-disagree with that element too, but to me we have no place changing core mechanics. I'd have the same reaction if we wanted to change the type chart or add a move or adjust a Pokemon's stats or something, and this is similarly too far for me.

 

[Jackal]

Our job is to create a metagame with what we are given, not change the game itself. We can do this with bans, clauses, restrictions, etc.
We are not here to create the most competitive game possible, were here to create the most competitive pokemon game possible.

Sleep clause is a clause we put on the game in order to make a better metagame. We haven't changed how the sleep moves actually work.

I am sure if someone analyzed the damage formula and made a small adjustment or changed the base stats of a few pokemon here and there we could make the game much, much more competitive than it currently is, but that is not what we are here to do. And this proposed change is bordering on the same lines as those.

 

[LonelyNess]

Our job is to create a metagame with what we are given, not change the game itself. We can do this with bans, clauses, restrictions, etc.
We are not here to create the most competitive game possible, were here to create the most competitive pokemon game possible.

Sleep clause is a clause we put on the game in order to make a better metagame. We haven't changed how the sleep moves actually work.

I'm pretty sure that on Wifi if you use a Sleep move against a non-sleeping target, it puts it to sleep if it hits (Insomnia not counted), regardless of whether or not there is another sleeping Pokemon. This is very obviously changing the way sleep moves actually work.

And I'm not against that, just like I'm not against removing crits.

 

[Jackal]

It's not changing the way it works, it is changing the way we are allowing it to be used in our metagame, aka implementing a "restriction" or "clause".

The only likewise thing you can do with CHs that I can see is taking the %chance of a CH happening (let's say that it is is 2%, I really have no idea what it is sadly) and implementing a "CH Clause" such that if you get 1 ch in the first 50 attacking turns of your battle (aka 2%), then you cannot get another one in those 50 turns.

While I am not at all saying that the above is even viable, I am just saying that it at least takes what has been given to us and "restricts" it in some way to improve pokemon as a competitive game. If we could ban critical hits I am sure we would, but it is not something we can choose or not choose to ban, we would actually have to remove it from the game to do that. So the best we can do is come up with a "Clause" like the one I mentioned above. We have done so for Sleep Clause and OHKO Clause in the past.

So unless someone can come up with a better "CH Clause", I think the answer to this thread will always be "No" since no one is here to reprogram the game, only to take what we have and try to work with it.

 

[Philip7086]

lol, this is absurd. I'm honestly in shock that you would take the results of the Smogon Philosophy poll this far, despite the OP clearly saying:

Before getting started with determining clauses, tiers, or anything really in competitive Pokemon, we need to set some ground rules. In other words, Smogon needs to define what it intends to be in its philosophy. As most people know, a big section of Smogon is based on playing Pokemon using an online simulator. There has been a lot of controversy in the past about how our simulators should function, in terms of mirroring in-game mechanics. Some users firmly believe that Smogon's simulators should strictly follow how Pokemon can be played from the cartridge, while others think that we should be allowed some liberty to tweak certain parts for the sake of improving the game's competitive appeal. The major examples of this are Acid Rain and Sleep Clause functionality. Also, this issue has been debated a LOT in the past, both on IRC and in these topics: Pure Implementation vs Changing the Game, Implementing proper game mechanics, and Cartridge Sleep Clause mechanics. In the past, it has usually just been one admin stepping in and saying "this is how we're doing things", and the discussion ends there. That would be fine, however, if you search through those topics, you'll find that admins have not been consistent with each other in terms of their thoughts. That is why I'm opening this topic up to all of you to post and vote on what you want to see be Smogon's official policy on simulator mechanics. The results of this poll will be Smogon's official stance on simulator mechanics for the entirety of the 5th generation, and possibly forever. I think both parties have good points, and the biggest issue about this topic is the fact that it's an issue itself, and we spend so much time arguing about it without actually seeing any results. Before you dive in head first, though, here are some definitions I want to make clear:

Game Mechanics: This includes everything regarding how Pokemon battles actually function. A move's accuracy, secondary effect rate, critical hit rate, how it functions, how stat changes are determined, how EV's can be distributed, IV limitations, how priorities are determined, and even "glitches", are all part of the game's mechanics. This debate and poll is about whether or not Smogon needs to absolutely follow every detail about how Pokemon battle mechanics function in-cart.

Clauses/Rules: These are limitations that we place on competitive Pokemon as a community. These do NOT alter the game's mechanics in any way, and these are not what the debate is about. Saying that "Smogon already changes the game's mechanics by banning Pokemon and setting up clauses" is incorrect as defined by this topic, and posts claiming so will be deleted. Basically, clauses or rules are what we set up, and if people break them they are disqualified. We can use the simulator to prevent people from bringing banned Pokemon or moves into our standard battles. One way to look at this is to consider the simulator to be a judge that looks at your team before you battle and tells you whether or not you can play. Simple.

Please note that the purpose of this topic is not to debate about Sleep Clause mechanics, or anything specific; that has already been done to death, and I'm pretty sure most users already know where they stand on this issue. If you have not thought too much about this yet, then please read the topics I linked to in this post to catch up on some of the key arguments. I think most people already know my personal preference and stance, and if you don't know you can go check the poll results to find out. I could have put my foot down and said "this is how we're doing things", but I think this is something worth letting the community decide. Let's move past this issue and set it in stone so we can get on with shaping the 5th generation!

This poll closes in 7 days.

Edit: I just wanted to be clear that for option 2 (no), we would still only reserve the right to change mechanics on very rare occasions. I do not want it to come off as an option to change Pokemon to a fighting game or something drastic.

Throwing out critical hits and "other such sources of 'hax'" that affect almost every single match is just about as drastic as you can get in Pokemon, and I'm pretty much in disbelief that you even thought for a second that this would be considered. The funniest part about this is the fact that people brushed aside any mention of a slippery slope argument when discussing whether or not we should strictly follow in-game mechanics in the past, because they said it was ridiculous to even assume anyone would make a serious attempt to remove critical hits and "other such sources of hax'". I am not going to even dignify this thread with a vote, and I'm very disappointed in your completely misguided interpretation of the poll I set up.

Absolutely not.

 

[eric the espeon]

no.. i heard someone talking about this on irc and thought it was a joke. please say this is some elaborate April fools which missed the intended target by several months. If this change or anything like it goes through, Smogon will within a few months no longer be the most important competitive Pokemon site and a huge number of users will simply move away, including myself. It's.. beyond inconceivable that a single PR member is actually supporting this.

We should not make mechanical changes with a large competitive impact unless that impact is absolutely and entirely required to have a playable metagame. We play Pokemon.

With the decision that we don't necessarily have to follow game mechanics in the pursuit of creating a balanced game

And never bring up balance as a general term for "something you want in a metagame", it is quite directly not that. It refers to balance between different Pokemon's, strategy's, move's, or other game element's comparative strength. And can in every case I know of so far this can be almost perfectly dealt with by bans. Still, I will reword the paragraph because it seems that some people do not understand what was meant by it.

I say this to anyone who has votes "Yes": If you honestly don't like playing Pokemon, go play another game. Or better yet, go and make a modded server. It's not all that hard, just decide what you want and make a public call for help setting it up. Remove the R variable in the damage formula. Remove misses. Remove secondary effects. Remove Speed ties. If you don't like hax, you're in the wrong game, please leave it for those who wish to play Pokemon (and for semantic pedants who say we're not playing Pokemon if we change anything at all, every sim ever has had glitches. We've never played Pokemon. Or take the common sense route. Something close enough competitively to Pokemon counts as Pokemon).

 

[Hipmonlee]

It's not changing the way it works

Uhh, the sleep clause we call classic sleep clause definitely changes the way it works. This is what has been voted on and accepted by the community..

[edit] - well, not exactly I guess, but it has been theoretically approved anyway..

Have a nice day.

 

[Erazor]

No, no, no. Those who voted 'yes' in the previous poll actually brought this up as part of their arguments, don't go strengthen their arguments!!

When we voted 'no' on that poll, I for one voted just to keep the option of taking out shit like the acid rain glitch. I'm sure most of the others voted so for similar reasons. Playing without a glitch(yes, it is a glitch) that can potentially break the game is still pokemon - playing a game without critical hits is NOT Pokemon.

 

[undisputed]

As much as I hate critical hits, I think they should stay. For example, I would say Critical Hits are roughly equivalent to getting DD Dragonite burned by Heatran's Fire Blast. Both instances Dragonite is pretty much screwed, but what if we got rid of Critical Hits here? Couldn't we logically take a small step and get rid of Fire Blast's burn rate since it is similar in Hax value? And if we start removing that sort of Hax, we are starting to change the way moves affect the game. Damn, what if lava plume didn't burn 30% of the time? That's Hax, albeit more likely Hax, but it is still what would be considered as a lucky effect. Essentially, I think getting rid of Critical hits is a big step and can lend itself to other changes we feel might 'improve the game'. There's a line between Acid weather (like obvious glitches) and changing fundamental properties of the game that Game Freak intended.

 

[The Grand Babido]

I think the game would strictly be "better" as in "increases the chance of the better player actually winning" if critical hits were removed, so from a competitive stand point, this would be a step into the future. However, I think by removing critical hits we are increasing the gap between simulators, Wi-Fi and in-game.

I know I am not exactly one for adhering to in-game mechanics, I think removing critical hits is going a bit too far. We play Pokemon, not some form of game derived from Pokemon that has been created by a select group of individuals. I think critical hits are an essential part of Pokemon, really.

 

[Bologo]

I personally think this is a horrible idea, because while putting something like classic sleep clause in doesn't really nerf any moves, and neither does taking away acid rain, taking away crits nerfs a whole ton of crap that really shouldn't be.

Moves/items that are explicitly affected by crits:

- Mountain Storm/Ice Breath: Now made into a craptastic 40 BP move on par with Scratch
- Focus Energy: On par with Splash
- High Crit moves (several of these): Now these moves are all low BP, super-exclusive, or have crap accuracy for no reason
- Scope Lens: Useless item
- Stick: Doesn't really matter, but also useless
- Lansat Berry: Useless
- Super Luck: On par with having no ability (although I suppose these users have an alternate ability, but it's still not fair to them at all)

There might be more, but basically what I'm trying to say is that unlike classic sleep clause and removal of acid rain, which only really have implicit effects on the actual gameplay since they don't change much, removing crits has a very explicit effect on the game, enough that it completely changes the mechanics of several moves and items to render them useless.

IMO, when we start completely mutilating stuff like moves and items by changing/removing/adding a mechanic, that's crossing the line, and therefore I believe that crits need to stay if we want to play pokemon.

 

[Heysup]

The "sticking strictly to the cartridge" option was an absolute one. People voted "no" because we have no idea what could possibly occur in the future and in general, people avoid absolute options with no breathing room. This, as well, conveniently allows us to use more practical answers to problems (ie the possibility of classic sleep clause instead of a complicated one creating a win condition - though I don't really care either way) as opposed to dealing with glitches and such.

The point was not to start changing the foundations of Pokemon just because we made one small change. Critical hits have been proven to not be a glitch or mistake by GF, they have been implemented in every game. The Acid Rain glitch is quite obviously a glitch because it makes no logical sense and was only apparent in Platinum.

The fact that this is even seriously brought up concerns me. I am fucking embarrassed to have this thread in Policy Review, and frankly, anywhere except firebot.

 

[lilyhollow]

Doesn't surprise me at all that this was brought up, since it was my exact argument against making an explicit "we can modify mechanics" policy in the first place. I am surprised at how quickly it was brought up, though. Basically this post is a big "too late" to Erazer's "don't go strengthen their arguments!!" post. If people are already bringing up this nonsense, seems pretty obvious that we should be worried about what happens a year or two down the line.

 

[mtr]

Everyone's already put up logic-based arguments against banning critical hits, so I'm going to posit a realpolitik argument: banning critical hits would cause a massive upwelling of anger against smogon, a disconnect between the cartridge and simulator players on the site, and a chance for more constructionist (adhering strictly to cartridge mechanics) rival websites to establish their own policies with respectable followings.

It's one thing to ban Acid Weather, it's quite another to ban Critical Hits. If we go back to the argument of "designer intent", it's obvious that Game Freak intended for critical hits to be a part of the game due to items like Scope Lens (aside from the fact that they exist). There is nothing that makes it clear that Game Freak wanted Acid Weather.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I think this is an extremely liberal interpretation of the results of the poll about changing mechanics. I find the "we aren't even playing Pokemon anymore!!" arguments to be a really irritating catch-all most of the time they're used, but critical hits are over "the line" of what is fair game for us to change to me. In my view, it's our job to make the game as competitive as we can within the restraints we're given unless a situation arises where a significant and probably inadvertant mistake by the developers forces us to take an action in order to keep the game as competitive as it can be.

I completely agree with this. This is a serious stretch of the game-mechanics poll, so far a stretch that I almost want to suggest this topic is trolling considering the people who voted "yes". Luckily "no" won in the game mechanics poll, or else we wouldn't be able to have a vote and discussion on the issue.

With point b. I'd say that changing luck mechanics should absolutely stop with critical hits. Every other luck factor is a benefit of using a specific move over another. They give users incentive to use more tbolts/thunders or more ice beams. Basing luck mechanics in moveset choices is competitively acceptable in my eyes.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but does this mean you would support banning critical hits, but not attacks that can miss, flinch, freeze, burn, poison, paralyze or give stat boosts/drops? What is the difference between choosing Night Slash over Crunch when you seem to not care about the difference between Thunderbolt and Thunder?

As far as c. goes, Lonelyness outlined it pretty well. Critical hits are not a legitimate strategy to attempting to take down defensive boosts. If you want to rely on a crit to beat CM Jirachi have fun with that.

They are a completely legitimate strategy for this purpose, especially since things like Encore and Taunt have been nerfed in BW. Haze is "lol" and most common pHazers are destroyed by the most common defense boosters. If you make one wrong switch against a Defense booster you can be in for a long battle with no further thinking required from your opponent. This is especially true since we're seriously considering allowing people to see each other's teams before battles. If you have a bad team matchup, you may not even have a choice in the matter in how you get to defend against Defense boosters due to the number of viable trappers in OU.

So with the *extreme* improvement in the competitiveness of the game gained through getting rid of crits, I have to vote yes.

I don't really see how the game is improved from a competitive standpoint by removing critical hits, they balance out in the long run. If Smogon changed its style of tournaments to something more befitting of Pokemon (i.e. not single elimination), we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

 

[Ulevo]

Although the overwhelming majority of the Policy Review members here realize how silly and disappointing the suggestion being proposed here is, it's instances like these that make me feel fortunate that we do in fact have Philip7086 and the other five members to "put their foot down" where it is appropriate.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

They are a completely legitimate strategy for this purpose, especially since things like Encore and Taunt have been nerfed in BW. Haze is "lol" and most common pHazers are destroyed by the most common defense boosters. If you make one wrong switch against a Defense booster you can be in for a long battle with no further thinking required from your opponent. This is especially true since we're seriously considering allowing people to see each other's teams before battles. If you have a bad team matchup, you may not even have a choice in the matter in how you get to defend against Defense boosters due to the number of viable trappers in OU.

But still on average if you don't have a legitimate defense to defensive boosters you're more than likely going to lose the battle anyway. Relying on a crit in situations like these is a last resort effort on the part of someone who should lose the battle.

I don't really see how the game is improved from a competitive standpoint by removing critical hits, they balance out in the long run. If Smogon changed its style of tournaments to something more befitting of Pokemon (i.e. not single elimination), we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

This is a very good point. Crits don't balance out in the longrun of a single elim best of one tourney. In the tour they balance out because of the structure of being able to battle 2 times a week over the course of 12 weeks. In spl/wcop they balance out because it's a team setup where there are 9/10 battles. I guess my biggest problem is our big official tournament. Our official tournament should encourage skill but its setup really doesn't. I guess if we're not going to get rid of crits (we're not going to) we should definitely try to balance them out in our tournament structure. This is clearly a discussion for a different topic though (one that has been discussed before I believe) but maybe it's time for a reevaluation.

Also just want to reiterate what I've said numerous times on IRC. I do think that removing crits is a "drastic" change and that it's going too far. I just can't defend something I feel is so detrimental to the game (especially in Smogon Tournament which is our official tournament which by no means emphasizes skill and the longrun balance of luck).

 

[cim]

Critical hits and critical hit managment are in my mind a very balanced and important addition to Pokemon for the very specific reason that they allow stat up Pokemon to be beaten. This makes pure defense boosting breakable and requires teams to use other safeguards (Substitute, etc) to stop a sweep from being broken by a single Critical Hit. Many Pokemon that could counter by statting up are removed from this consideration because of Critical Hits.

But on top of this, probability managment is a fundamental skill in Pokemon; it's really what the entire game is about. Taking out an element of probability does not help Pokemon, it merely offsets the managment of probability into some other part of the game like teambuilding.

The only people that still complain about critical hits are the people that put far, far too much emphasis on a single Pokemon battle, which is analogus to saying Aces are broken in Poker because a draw of an Ace makes you more likely to win that hand. Pokemon is a game of the long term.

Now onto the "real point"

Although the overwhelming majority of the Policy Review members here realize how silly and disappointing the suggestion being proposed here is, it's instances like these that make me feel fortunate that we do in fact have Philip7086 and the other five members to "put their foot down" where it is appropriate.

Thank you for making this point as it is one I have been trying to scream at the top of my lungs for years.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

But still on average if you don't have a legitimate defense to defensive boosters you're more than likely going to lose the battle anyway. Relying on a crit in situations like these is a last resort effort on the part of someone who should lose the battle.

Well, you can have a legit defense against boosters but lose them in the long run of the match. Not every match goes exactly to plan, which conveniently won't be an issue anymore if we reveal everyone's teams, no planning will be required!

It is a last resort, but there are so many other places in the game that you can rely on luck that it doesn't make sense to me that people are singling out crits. I don't see the difference between waiting for a crit and hoping that you do better than average damage for a KO.

 

[Deck Knight]

If a 6.25% chance of happening is too damaging, clearly 10% and 30% chances of hax are to be avoided as well. After all that burn or freeze on your physical sweeper has ruined a game for you.

Crit removers cannot possibly be serious if they believe "it ruins a game" is a serious argument. There is no such thing as "it shouldn't have happened" in Pokemon. Every effect has a set chance of happening and you calculate that into your strategy. Why do we hype Boiling Water? It has the same chance of burning as Sheer Cold has of hitting, after all, and Sheer Cold should never hit because it could ruin a game. Critical hits serve as an internal check to defensive Pokemon. You don't rely on them, however they inherently reduce the viability of anything that spams defense boosters. There is no "improvement" in a crit-less metagame, it's simply a different metagame where Smogon indulges childish fantasies that we still play competitive Pokemon.