Double Team and Minimize:Broken or Uncompetitive?

[BrazilianGuy]

What's the point of this discussion?

There is already luck in the game

Yeah, of course there is. So, you're saying that the actual Skill-based metagame, with the factor luck included must be changed to a Luck-based metagame with some sort of skill? That's the best choice? Change an entire competitive metagame because of two ridiculous attacks?

Really, if you want to see minimize in action, please, go fight Koga's Muk in-game and wait for 5 turns, then you'll see something close to a luck-based metagame...

Saying that there is always luck in the game is no argument. Because, as Woodchuck said, the chance of a missing hit of Stone Edge or Hydro Pump is yours! If you want a 100% move, with no power, the problem is yours. There are another factors like flinch and paralysis, but one can't compare with something close to every single attack you launch miss.

 

[locoghoul]

There are another factors like flinch and paralysis, but one can't compare with something close to every single attack you launch miss.

If you knew some math you could compare them. Ok, I'll show you:

Chance of hitting (or doing anything for that matters) against Jirachi's Iron Head: 40%

Chance of hitting (note that you can still do other stuff) against a +1 Evasion poke: 75%

Both assuming you are using a 100% acc move. If you are using, say Hydro Pump, then the % is gonna be lower for BOTH. Get that in your head please. Also, note that we are not even discussing T-wave/Air Slash/Iron Head.

And what's this "uncompetitive" nonsense?? If in a race I decide to run backwards, they are not gonna ban my style for being "uncompetitive", they are just gonna laugh at me and let me do whatever. In the end, the best runners are going to win.

 

[BrazilianGuy]

Yeah, you're right that Jirachi is ridiculous(I never said it isn't), for me, is something that really kills the competition, and it was my mistake to not mention it.

But..and the other argument? The luck-based metagame? You can't with it or you just ignored it?

 

[MaestroXXVI]

but...

chance of opponent doing something useful while using iron head: ~1%
chance of opponent doing something useful while at +2 evasion: ~60%

With iron head, unless its doing a significant amount of damage, its pretty useless...but with evasion, you can set up in addition to not getting damaged back

your comparison is like comparing rain dance to drizzle...you need to use a turn for RD, but drizzle activates on the switchin...you cant do anything other than cause a flinch while using iron head, but a single free turn to minimize can allow you to set up at the same time as your opponent does nothing...

 

[FrostFire]

Hm, just thought I'd add my two cents on this one, because this is a particular topic I've always been interested in. TBH, I'm not sure how I feel about Evasion Clause - there's no way that you can say it's broken. Like, at all. Honestly, it's a really bad strategy. DT only gives you a single boost in one turn; compare that to the likes of Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, Quiver Dance (just realized how much time pokemon must spend in battle dancing for crap sake).
Anyway. The point is, there are just SO much more useful things that you could be doing with your turns in battle than relying on a move that has a chancy outcome at best. At this point, I also want to point out that DT/ Minimize users sacrifice REALLY important moves in order to boost their Evasion. The Dragonite thing proved that, but for another Example Set...

Starmie @ Leftovers
Minimize
Recover
Thunderbolt/ Ice Beam/ Toxic
Surf

If you're going to boost Evasion, then you need Recover, for obvious reasons. Add on Minimize, and half your moveset has gone, with only two attacks left to somehow sweep your opponent - and whatever you do, SOMETHING is going to wall you. No matter what. If you don't have Toxic, then special walls (most notably Blissey) are going to wall you till Kingdom Come; however, if you choose toxic, then you're walled by stuff like Jirachi, Tentacruel and Toxicroak to name a few. Then you have the problem of EVs. If you defensively EV, then Surf will be doing pathetic damage, and stuff like specially defensive roost Scizor wall you; whilst if you offensively EV, setting up becomes harder and you're prone to being taken out by a stray, moderately strong attack.

This is just one example; but what it shows is that you don't necessarily even need a counter to Evasion (like never-miss moves, Haze, Perish Song etc) because odds are, something you have on your team will wall the evasion booster. This happens (as shown above) because your movesets become more restricted (as well as problem-EV spreads). Additionally, not everything can use DT to great effect, like many posters seems to be implying. I mean, are you really going to use DT Volcarona, or DT Excadrill? Come on, they have better things to be doing, and just don't have the moveslots (or free turns, no less, for pokemon that are quite frail) to set it up.

Even pokemon that would supposedly be 'broken' with Evasion boosting moves aren't that good (mainly Minimize abusers). Starmie isn't the only example. Take Blissey:

Blissey @ Leftovers
Bold - 252HP/ 252 Def./ 4 Sp. Def
-Minimize
-Softboiled
-Seismic Toss
-Toxic

This, I'll admit, is quite a bit better. However, basically anything that is immune to toxic and can heal off damage completely destroys it. Gliscor, Skarmory, Roost Scizor, Reuniclus, Jirachi and Gengar are all common pokemon that would render this set useless.

So, after that somewhat-lengthy discussion, I find it hard to believe that anyone could call Evasion 'broken' as such. For me, the question is more about whether Evasion is actually desirable in the metagame. It is, after all, a strategy that usually puts the fate of the battle into the hands of the RNG, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On the other hand, if Evasion users are regularly hard-countered by common pokemon, then it seems like the strategy is so bad that, whether the ban is in place or not, it hardly seems to make a difference.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that, even in a metagame with no Evasion Clause, the better player would still win the majority of the time. A skilled player should have some idea of what they would do against the better Evasion abusers (honestly, there aren't as many good ones as people are saying), and have some kind of plan for it. This is on top of the fact that the strategy rarely works. To be fair, though, it does open the possibility of some matches being unfairly decided on by Evasion hax - but if you're talking about outside-chances, then you could be talking about any piece of unfortunate hax in a battle.

tl;dr - I hope I've made something resembling a coherent argument...

 

[Matterazi]

I don't think luck is an undesirable aspect of Pokemon. On the contrary, I think it pushes players to become even better, in order to be able to overcome 'hax' and broken tactics.

Therefore, I think that if double team/minimize were no longer banned, people certainly would create a way to beat such tactics.

 

[jas61292]

tl;dr - I hope I've made something resembling a coherent argument...

I'd certainly say so.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that, even in a metagame with no Evasion Clause, the better player would still win the majority of the time. A skilled player should have some idea of what they would do against the better Evasion abusers (honestly, there aren't as many good ones as people are saying), and have some kind of plan for it. This is on top of the fact that the strategy rarely works. To be fair, though, it does open the possibility of some matches being unfairly decided on by Evasion hax - but if you're talking about outside-chances, then you could be talking about any piece of unfortunate hax in a battle.

This is what I have been getting at the entire time. Evasion and luck don't mean unskilled players win more. Skilled players will still win most of the time. Any argument to the contrary are completely without any evidence to back them up.

 

[Joel]

Hm, just thought I'd add my two cents on this one, because this is a particular topic I've always been interested in. TBH, I'm not sure how I feel about Evasion Clause - there's no way that you can say it's broken. Like, at all. Honestly, it's a really bad strategy. DT only gives you a single boost in one turn; compare that to the likes of Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, Quiver Dance (just realized how much time pokemon must spend in battle dancing for crap sake).
Anyway. The point is, there are just SO much more useful things that you could be doing with your turns in battle than relying on a move that has a chancy outcome at best. At this point, I also want to point out that DT/ Minimize users sacrifice REALLY important moves in order to boost their Evasion. The Dragonite thing proved that, but for another Example Set...

Starmie @ Leftovers
Minimize
Recover
Thunderbolt/ Ice Beam/ Toxic
Surf

If you're going to boost Evasion, then you need Recover, for obvious reasons. Add on Minimize, and half your moveset has gone, with only two attacks left to somehow sweep your opponent - and whatever you do, SOMETHING is going to wall you. No matter what. If you don't have Toxic, then special walls (most notably Blissey) are going to wall you till Kingdom Come; however, if you choose toxic, then you're walled by stuff like Jirachi, Tentacruel and Toxicroak to name a few. Then you have the problem of EVs. If you defensively EV, then Surf will be doing pathetic damage, and stuff like specially defensive roost Scizor wall you; whilst if you offensively EV, setting up becomes harder and you're prone to being taken out by a stray, moderately strong attack.

This is just one example; but what it shows is that you don't necessarily even need a counter to Evasion (like never-miss moves, Haze, Perish Song etc) because odds are, something you have on your team will wall the evasion booster. This happens (as shown above) because your movesets become more restricted (as well as problem-EV spreads). Additionally, not everything can use DT to great effect, like many posters seems to be implying. I mean, are you really going to use DT Volcarona, or DT Excadrill? Come on, they have better things to be doing, and just don't have the moveslots (or free turns, no less, for pokemon that are quite frail) to set it up.

Even pokemon that would supposedly be 'broken' with Evasion boosting moves aren't that good (mainly Minimize abusers). Starmie isn't the only example. Take Blissey:

Blissey @ Leftovers
Bold - 252HP/ 252 Def./ 4 Sp. Def
-Minimize
-Softboiled
-Seismic Toss
-Toxic

This, I'll admit, is quite a bit better. However, basically anything that is immune to toxic and can heal off damage completely destroys it. Gliscor, Skarmory, Roost Scizor, Reuniclus, Jirachi and Gengar are all common pokemon that would render this set useless.

So, after that somewhat-lengthy discussion, I find it hard to believe that anyone could call Evasion 'broken' as such. For me, the question is more about whether Evasion is actually desirable in the metagame. It is, after all, a strategy that usually puts the fate of the battle into the hands of the RNG, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On the other hand, if Evasion users are regularly hard-countered by common pokemon, then it seems like the strategy is so bad that, whether the ban is in place or not, it hardly seems to make a difference.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that, even in a metagame with no Evasion Clause, the better player would still win the majority of the time. A skilled player should have some idea of what they would do against the better Evasion abusers (honestly, there aren't as many good ones as people are saying), and have some kind of plan for it. This is on top of the fact that the strategy rarely works. To be fair, though, it does open the possibility of some matches being unfairly decided on by Evasion hax - but if you're talking about outside-chances, then you could be talking about any piece of unfortunate hax in a battle.

tl;dr - I hope I've made something resembling a coherent argument...

This (imo) is the most intelligent post in this thread so far.

 

[Woodchuck]

Well.
I still stand by my point that unbanning evasion would go against the central point of the suspect testing process. Sure, evasion isn't broken. At all.
But it's not conducive to a "competition".

You are just telling billion of poker players out there that they are just monkeys sitting around a table throwing money. There is already luck in the game. No one banned Jirachi or Togekiss for those 1 in 20 matches where they got 5-6 flinches on a row. People just adapted to it, and that is actual skill, to think and develop a better strategy. It's called "competition". That 10% chance of Ice Beam freezing your poke is there, like it or not. If you get frozen it's not "omg hax0r" but a reminder that you can't control everything (yes, that includes not being able to control if your opponent decides on using DT Scyther)

No, I'm not. Yes, competitions and especially Pokemon involves managing the odds. I'm just of the opinion that the less odds there are to manage, the more consistently the better player would win, and consequently the 'better' the competition there is. I'm not denying poker involves skill, but I think everyone will agree there is a large amount of luck to it.

As for FrostFire's post, sure it was intelligent, but I think he's kind of detracting from the most relevant point of the thread -- evasion isn't broken, but it's not "good" for competition.

Yes, crazy hax happens, but we shouldn't create a metagame where it's even more likely that the skilled player will lose.

Proponents of evasion are basically claiming two things:
1) It's not broken, in fact it's a terrible strategy and
2) it will add more variety to the metagame.

Does anyone realize how contradictory those two points are?

If the main point of unbanning evasion is to create a more varied metagame, and yet evasion is so terrible that it wouldn't have any chance of being broken, then what's the point of unbanning it in the first place? People won't use it except for the occasional ladder scrub, and when those scrubs win, it further invalidates the laddering system of PO. (Which is already incredibly prone to people getting haxed out of reqs in the first place thanks to the variation system.) There wouldn't be any relevant or beneficial variety created.
As things stand, there isn't really any good reason to unban evasion at all.

Unbanning for the sake of principle isn't worth creating a worse metagame. People trying to unban evasion need to think through their side beyond "more variety".

 

[alexwolf]

From my point of view though, you are still thinking from the perspective of the current metagame and not the hypothetical one we are talking about.
One line specifically stands out to me:
I don't really agree with this because if DT is as big of a threat as people claim, then having these moves would counter many different Pokemon, thus be useful overall.

But to put it a different way, say OU had no Pokemon weak to Rock. In this situation, carrying Stone Edge would be not very useful. Now if one Pokemon who was weak to Rock appeared and was so good that it forced people to start carrying Stone Edge on everyone who can learn it, then that Pokemon would be broken, because it forces everyone to run otherwise situational moves that are generally useless.

You seem to be claiming the same thing in this scenario, but with Double Team taking the place of the broken Pokemon, and never missing moves taking the role of Stone Edge. The difference is though that DT is not one Pokemon. It could be on everyone. It would not be one Pokemon overcentralizing the game towards it, it would be a threatening move that everyone should prepare for. And in such a situation, those moves would be useful moves. Not situational at all.

Just because something seems like a generally bad move in this metagame has absolutely no effect on how good they are in some other metagame.

The comparison is quite invalid i can say.
You are comparing 2 moves with whole types of moves.
Every type of move has advantages and drawbacks.
Every type of move has multiple targets not only one.They are used for better neutral or super effective coverage,or even to deal with a specific target better.
See how many uses i menioned? Three! And every use excpet the last one involves a big number of different targets unlike the always hitting moves that are centralized around only 2 moves(targets).
Also every type has a lot of moves.
So i don't think that you comparison makes any sense.
DT and Minimize are just 2 moves that are used solely for 1 playstyle,and they don't even counter this well,while being trash otherwise.

Also finally i agree with you that luck doesn't necessary mean no competition(poker) but in a place where most players enjoy the skilled based competition it means less competition.

Hm, just thought I'd add my two cents on this one, because this is a particular topic I've always been interested in. TBH, I'm not sure how I feel about Evasion Clause - there's no way that you can say it's broken. Like, at all. Honestly, it's a really bad strategy. DT only gives you a single boost in one turn; compare that to the likes of Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, Quiver Dance (just realized how much time pokemon must spend in battle dancing for crap sake).
Anyway. The point is, there are just SO much more useful things that you could be doing with your turns in battle than relying on a move that has a chancy outcome at best. At this point, I also want to point out that DT/ Minimize users sacrifice REALLY important moves in order to boost their Evasion. The Dragonite thing proved that, but for another Example Set...

Starmie @ Leftovers
Minimize
Recover
Thunderbolt/ Ice Beam/ Toxic
Surf

If you're going to boost Evasion, then you need Recover, for obvious reasons. Add on Minimize, and half your moveset has gone, with only two attacks left to somehow sweep your opponent - and whatever you do, SOMETHING is going to wall you. No matter what. If you don't have Toxic, then special walls (most notably Blissey) are going to wall you till Kingdom Come; however, if you choose toxic, then you're walled by stuff like Jirachi, Tentacruel and Toxicroak to name a few. Then you have the problem of EVs. If you defensively EV, then Surf will be doing pathetic damage, and stuff like specially defensive roost Scizor wall you; whilst if you offensively EV, setting up becomes harder and you're prone to being taken out by a stray, moderately strong attack.

This is just one example; but what it shows is that you don't necessarily even need a counter to Evasion (like never-miss moves, Haze, Perish Song etc) because odds are, something you have on your team will wall the evasion booster. This happens (as shown above) because your movesets become more restricted (as well as problem-EV spreads). Additionally, not everything can use DT to great effect, like many posters seems to be implying. I mean, are you really going to use DT Volcarona, or DT Excadrill? Come on, they have better things to be doing, and just don't have the moveslots (or free turns, no less, for pokemon that are quite frail) to set it up.

Even pokemon that would supposedly be 'broken' with Evasion boosting moves aren't that good (mainly Minimize abusers). Starmie isn't the only example. Take Blissey:

Blissey @ Leftovers
Bold - 252HP/ 252 Def./ 4 Sp. Def
-Minimize
-Softboiled
-Seismic Toss
-Toxic

This, I'll admit, is quite a bit better. However, basically anything that is immune to toxic and can heal off damage completely destroys it. Gliscor, Skarmory, Roost Scizor, Reuniclus, Jirachi and Gengar are all common pokemon that would render this set useless.

So, after that somewhat-lengthy discussion, I find it hard to believe that anyone could call Evasion 'broken' as such. For me, the question is more about whether Evasion is actually desirable in the metagame. It is, after all, a strategy that usually puts the fate of the battle into the hands of the RNG, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On the other hand, if Evasion users are regularly hard-countered by common pokemon, then it seems like the strategy is so bad that, whether the ban is in place or not, it hardly seems to make a difference.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that, even in a metagame with no Evasion Clause, the better player would still win the majority of the time. A skilled player should have some idea of what they would do against the better Evasion abusers (honestly, there aren't as many good ones as people are saying), and have some kind of plan for it. This is on top of the fact that the strategy rarely works. To be fair, though, it does open the possibility of some matches being unfairly decided on by Evasion hax - but if you're talking about outside-chances, then you could be talking about any piece of unfortunate hax in a battle.

tl;dr - I hope I've made something resembling a coherent argument...

This is a very nice post that shows a lot to the people that think that these moves would be broken.
The only part which i don't agree with is in the end,when you say that the most skilled player would still win the most times.
While he would surely win the most times,he will win less times than he would if the evaison raising moves weren't present.
Finally in the end you mention that we already have some hax in our game so a little bit more 'outside' hax wouldn't hurt.
I strongly disagree.
The hax we have so far is a necassary evil.
Crits,burns,freezes,damage variation,flicnhes etc all come with moves that also have other purposes.
So for example crits cannot be prevented since they come in combination with the damage that the move deals and therefore we must accept it 'cause we cannot alter the game mechanics.

But Double Team and Minimize do nothing except adding more luck factors to the metagame.
And the majority of the smogon community,i think,prefers a more skilled based metagame than a more luck based one.
So we should try to minimize the instances and the amount of hax whenever we can.
That's my point of view!

Well.
I still stand by my point that unbanning evasion would go against the central point of the suspect testing process. Sure, evasion isn't broken. At all.
But it's not conducive to a "competition".

No, I'm not. Yes, competitions and especially Pokemon involves managing the odds. I'm just of the opinion that the less odds there are to manage, the more consistently the better player would win, and consequently the 'better' the competition there is. I'm not denying poker involves skill, but I think everyone will agree there is a large amount of luck to it.

As for FrostFire's post, sure it was intelligent, but I think he's kind of detracting from the most relevant point of the thread -- evasion isn't broken, but it's not "good" for competition.

Yes, crazy hax happens, but we shouldn't create a metagame where it's even more likely that the skilled player will lose.

Proponents of evasion are basically claiming two things:
1) It's not broken, in fact it's a terrible strategy and
2) it will add more variety to the metagame.

Does anyone realize how contradictory those two points are?

If the main point of unbanning evasion is to create a more varied metagame, and yet evasion is so terrible that it wouldn't have any chance of being broken, then what's the point of unbanning it in the first place? People won't use it except for the occasional ladder scrub, and when those scrubs win, it further invalidates the laddering system of PO. (Which is already incredibly prone to people getting haxed out of reqs in the first place thanks to the variation system.) There wouldn't be any relevant or beneficial variety created.
As things stand, there isn't really any good reason to unban evasion at all.

Unbanning for the sake of principle isn't worth creating a worse metagame. People trying to unban evasion need to think through their side beyond "more variety".

I totally agree with you!

 

[jas61292]

I still think you are reading my arguments from the point of view of the current game and not a hypothetical one, but I will move on from that.

I think the biggest disagreement is how luck affect how much skill is required to win. The big difference between the two sides is that one claims that the introduction of evasion raising moves allows less skilled players to beat more skilled ones more often. The other side, which I am arguing, is that skilled players will always win more, because if they truly are skilled they will adapt to what ever the metagame is and still be able to win consistently, and that evasion moves do not do anything to change this fact.

Now, while this next point might not be best applied to evasion, as I am neither for nor against allowing it back into the metagame, but this pretty much sums up my opinion on luck in general. Here is something I said back in that other thread about uncompetitiveness (which is also now my sig):

You could remove luck from Pokemon, and say whoever wins has the most skill. But while it may be true, the thing they would have the most skill at would no longer be Pokemon

Under my views that skilled players will always win more, I am forced to accept the fact that all erasing luck will do is change the game being played, not changing the reliance on skill.

Competitive Pokemon has almost never accepted Evasion, and out of a sense of tradition and a desire not to create chaos, I am fine with that. But to me, the arguments that luck reduces the value of skill are just absurd.

 

[alexwolf]

I still think you are reading my arguments from the point of view of the current game and not a hypothetical one, but I will move on from that.

I think the biggest disagreement is how luck affect how much skill is required to win. The big difference between the two sides is that one claims that the introduction of evasion raising moves allows less skilled players to beat more skilled ones more often. The other side, which I am arguing, is that skilled players will always win more, because if they truly are skilled they will adapt to what ever the metagame is and still be able to win consistently, and that evasion moves do not do anything to change this fact.

Now, while this next point might not be best applied to evasion, as I am neither for nor against allowing it back into the metagame, but this pretty much sums up my opinion on luck in general. Here is something I said back in that other thread about uncompetitiveness (which is also now my sig):



Under my views that skilled players will always win more, I am forced to accept the fact that all erasing luck will do is change the game being played, not changing the reliance on skill.

Competitive Pokemon has almost never accepted Evasion, and out of a sense of tradition and a desire not to create chaos, I am fine with that. But to me, the arguments that luck reduces the value of skill are just absurd.

Ok i think that finally i understand your reasoning and i can say that i agree with you at some deegree.
But still for me evasion is a bad strategy,in most situations,and the only thing it will add to the metagame is less skill reliance and more luck reliance.
And this for me is unfair,in a skill-based competitive community.

 

[NoUserName]

It is boring. Forces the use of rubbish and weak moves with no use out of it(except Aural Sphere which it can only be learned by about 15 pokemon, most Ubers)

Minimize also raises +2 Evasion now.

 

[pharaohcalvin]

What is the point of unbanning it??? It brings nothing to the metagame, and it gives a slim slim chance of someone far less skilled to win a battle they shouldn't have. :/ It does not add "variety" as only bad players will use it. Lets, put our time to more productive things then giving something pointless a test.

 

[AerialLight]

Double team is both broken and uncompetitive. The main reason is that double team is a complete luck-based strategy, 100% reliant on the random number generator. In other words it isn't really a strategy at all.

You really don't need much skill to use double team, because their really is no skill, its success is mostly from getting lucky with the RNG. Even the most experienced player can fail heavily with double team, getting his Pokémon hit every time, and even the least experienced player that uses Rampardos/Pidgeot/Emboar can win 6-0 if they get lucky with double team. Double team can either be a gamebreaking strategy, or a completely useless one, the outcome being random and luck-based.

Double team is uncompetitive and luck-based. It is not at all reliable, but at the same time it can allow for an inxperienced lucky player to win without any form of strategy, so it is best that it is banned.

Also even if double team was unbanned it would not contribute to the metagame at all, just make it worse because suddenly noobs have an opportunity to score wins with enigma teams with no strategy in them.

 

[Woodchuck]

You could remove luck from Pokemon, and say whoever wins has the most skill. But while it may be true, the thing they would have the most skill at would no longer be Pokemon

But... we're not removing luck completely. We are, on the other hand, removing luck that cannot be controlled by players (i. e. the choice of Fire Blast over Flamethrower is, indeed, controlled by the player). If you believe that this concept of minimizing luck that is out of the control of the player is incorrect, and that luck is an inherent part of the game, then... our suspect testing process is invalid. People who are skilled at OU aren't skilled at Pokemon.

Sorry, but I must return to my point that the suspect testing process must, within the mechanics of the game, make the more skilled player win more often. I've never said that we must remove all luck; however, purposefully introducing more luck into the metagame is the complete opposite of what we should be trying to do as a competitive battling community.

 

[Challenger]

Do I personally think Double Team/Minimize is broken? No, not even close.

I actually battle versus DT/Minimize on a near daily basis on wi-fi GBU battles (a very nice place where stuff doesn't get banned, and things still aren't broken). I don't use them myself because they are so easy to beat that it's near comical when I see an opponent use them. (Why would I want to lose a battle for myself by using them?)

Take for example a theoretically broken w/ DT Poke...Multiscale D-nite.

I switch to Metagross, D-nite +1 evasion.

Metagross used Bullet Punch (still very likely to hit). Break Multiscale. D-nite either DT's again, or Roosts to keep Multiscale. Assuming a hit. If it doesn't, D-Nite has another evasion boost under its belt, or even a Dragon Dance.

Next turn, D-nite either tries to stall with DT after Roost, or depends on +2 evasion and fails to KO w/ E-quake/Fire Punch/Fire Blast. Metagross uses Ice Punching v. +2 evasion w/ Multiscale broken if there was no Roost. Here's where this scenario goes wrong. If it's scale is broken, only a fool would try to rely on a miss. D-Nite, from this point on, has 16 turns to fish for a miss with roost. And once he gets that miss, he Dragon Dances until his MS is broken, and then starts the whole thing over.

Very likely to still KO. If it misses, well, so does Focus Blast and Stone Edge w/o evasion. Shit happens. People who use Stone Edge and Focus Blast are using these moves knowing that a miss is a possibility, and knowing that a miss likely means that they will lose their current standoff. When Scizor is trying to finish off his opponent with Bullet Punch, to have that miss by any evasion whatsoever is cheap and broken.

If it isn't broke...Don't fix it. DT/Minimize isn't broke. The only thing your entire scenario did was assume that D-Nite would stop at plus 1 Evasion and that the evasion itself wouldn't be a factor.

Consider this instead: Metagross switches in to D-Nite as it DTs. D-Nite at plus 1 evasion. Bullet punch misses, and doesn't break the sash. Now, D-Nite DTs again. If it's MS is broken by pure luck on the second turn, it roosts to get it back, fishing for another miss so it can continue to bulk up.

Bold responses: me.

Let's just end this discussion? Someone make a "Double Team" squad and challenge another person to a battle, then post the transcript/warstory....

Let the community take an in-depth look at an actual battle. If you guys have time to discuss it, you have time to test it, right?

We can look at it, turn by turn, identify misplays, and see if the better player won or if the double team guy just haxed his way to victory.

Any takers? If I didn't have to work in twenty minutes I'd do it.

 

[Zakharov]

Double team is both broken and uncompetitive. The main reason is that double team is a complete luck-based strategy, 100% reliant on the random number generator. In other words it isn't really a strategy at all.

You rreally don't need much skill to use double team, because their really is no skill, its success is mostly from getting lucky with the RNG. Even the most experienced player can fail heavily with double team, getting his Pokémon hit every time, and even the least experienced player that uses Rampardos/Pidgeot/Emboar can win 6-0 if they get lucky with double team. Double team can either be a gamebreaking strategy, or a completely useless one, the outcome being random and luck-based.

Double team is uncompetitive and luck-based. It is not at all reliable, but at the same time it can allow for an inxperienced lucky player to win without any form of strategy, so it is best that it is banned.

Also even if double team was unbanned it would not contribute to the metagame at all, just make it worse because suddenly noobs have an opportunity to score wins with enigma teams with no strategy in them.

Paraflinch Jirachi is 100% dependent on the RNG. In fact, paralysis is more or less eqivalent to evasion for the opponent and a speed penalty.

 

[Joel]

stuff......

Okay, D-nite has Double Team/Dragon Dance/Roost. Even at +6/+6 it's limited to one attack. Likely to be either Dragon Claw or Outrage.

I switch in Skarmory and wall it 8 ways to Sunday.

 

[Challenger]

Okay, D-nite has Double Team/Dragon Dance/Roost. Even at +6/+6 it's limited to one attack. Likely to be either Dragon Claw or Outrage.

I switch in Skarmory and wall it 8 ways to Sunday.

Skarmory counters standard D-Nite with roost/whirlwind, anyway. Any pokemon, broken or not, has a counter. That isn't the argument.

 

[Joel]

But... we're not removing luck completely. We are, on the other hand, removing luck that cannot be controlled by players (i. e. the choice of Fire Blast over Flamethrower is, indeed, controlled by the player). If you believe that this concept of minimizing luck that is out of the control of the player is incorrect, and that luck is an inherent part of the game, then... our suspect testing process is invalid. People who are skilled at OU aren't skilled at Pokemon.

Sorry, but I must return to my point that the suspect testing process must, within the mechanics of the game, make the more skilled player win more often. I've never said that we must remove all luck; however, purposefully introducing more luck into the metagame is the complete opposite of what we should be trying to do as a competitive battling community.

Yeah, the more skilled player does win more of the time with the opponent using a DT/Minimize team. It's a fail stratagy. The RNG stays in the non-DT/non-Minimize favor until they are at +3 evasion. That's at least two turns of fail for the DT/Minimize user.

Skarmory counters standard D-Nite with roost/whirlwind, anyway. Any pokemon, broken or not, has a counter. That isn't the argument.

You brought it back up.

 

[tehy]

The reason that double team was banned, in my mind, is that it adds nothing. What kind of strategies, apart from "Let's hope i get super lucky", are available with double team?

 

[alexwolf]

The reason that double team was banned, in my mind, is that it adds nothing. What kind of strategies, apart from "Let's hope i get super lucky", are available with double team?

Tehy this is not really an argument for something to get banned.
Many things don't add anything but they are not banned.

 

[risenreturn]

Double team is both broken and uncompetitive. The main reason is that double team is a complete luck-based strategy, 100% reliant on the random number generator. In other words it isn't really a strategy at all.

You really don't need much skill to use double team, because their really is no skill, its success is mostly from getting lucky with the RNG. Even the most experienced player can fail heavily with double team, getting his Pokémon hit every time, and even the least experienced player that uses Rampardos/Pidgeot/Emboar can win 6-0 if they get lucky with double team. Double team can either be a gamebreaking strategy, or a completely useless one, the outcome being random and luck-based.

Double team is uncompetitive and luck-based. It is not at all reliable, but at the same time it can allow for an inxperienced lucky player to win without any form of strategy, so it is best that it is banned.

Also even if double team was unbanned it would not contribute to the metagame at all, just make it worse because suddenly noobs have an opportunity to score wins with enigma teams with no strategy in them.

Ways that noobs can win wit little to no skill already exists, it's called weather. But that aside, I agree with the earlier post saying at the bare minimum, Evasion at least requires a fair testing. And Even if evasion is to come back, they could easily just put a limit on it to limit hax allowed, like at max, there can only be +3 evasion on the field at a time, and 50% is not really bad odds.

But, there are much more non-skill based things that can cause much, much more damage than one double team.Jirachi and Togekiss can sweep entire teams if there lucky enough with the RNG, here, let me give you an example:
Turn 1
Pokemon uses double team(100% attacks now 80%)
Turn 2
Pokemon uses double team(100% attacks are approx. 70%)
Turn 3
Pokemon uses Double team(100% attacks now 50%)

And against a Jirachi:
Turn 1
Jirachi used Thunder wave(50% chance of attacking)
Turn 2+
Jirachi uses Iron Head(13% chance of attacking)

And the same goes for Togekiss and air slash. if a player with good prediction uses these pokemon, there is no sufficient counter, Pokemon that can beat it? T-Wave it on the switch and flinchhax it to death, switch around? watch as your entire team get's paralysed and paraflinchhaxed to death. Inner Focus pokemon? how many pokemon prefer Inner Focus over a different ability of theirs?Alakazam? prefers synchronise/Magic Mirror.Dragonite? prefers Multiscale.Meinshao? prefers regenerator.

Worse things exist than double team, and they are used widely. Does that mean if double team is unbanned, it is not even a guarantee it will be common. will everyone definitely use double team? no, it doesn't. a player who prefer winning on skill and uses a little luck based things as possible won't use double team, and it can be found impressive to beat the RNG via. pure skill.

Yeah, the more skilled player does win more of the time with the opponent using a DT/Minimize team. It's a fail stratagy. The RNG stays in the non-DT/non-Minimize favor until they are at +3 evasion. That's at least two turns of fail for the DT/Minimize user.

And this.

 

[Challenger]

Jirachi with Iron Head and Body Slam/Thunder Wave is basically the same argument as double team.

It uses a "strategy" that completely relies on a roll of the dice to prevent the opponent from landing a hit.

If everyone REALLY thinks that that makes a fun and competitive game, then I am at a complete loss.