Evasion: Hit or Miss?

[reachzero]

Blame Game, when I read those two posts of Hipmonlee's, I don't hear him saying "evasion moves add a new competitive wrinkle to the metagame", I hear him saying "evasion moves are probably not as harmful as we tend to think". Those two points are very different.

Edit: Please help me out here people with more detailed knowledge of statistics than I do, but doesn't increasing the luck component of a game favor the lower rated player?

 

[lilyhollow]

He's saying that things will possibly be more competitive, because it's another tool that better players are more capable of using effectively.

 

[Veedrock]

AHA! And now we have precedent. If good players can take advantage of this, won't it become a widespread phenomenon and literally reshape the metagame? And then we enter into the cyclical team phase and realize that the game is now centralized and clustered around evasion? When something is good and brought forth, it catches on. People start to use it more and try to make themselves winners through an "effective" method that has been proven by some higher player. So the confusion begins...

Exaggerated example of course but that's how you play the game. :P

 

[lilyhollow]

If it becomes a widespread, effective, reliable strategy, that means we banned a widespread, effective, reliable strategy because it "just looks like luck to me!" If it becomes so effective as to be broken then obviously we have a problem (though we'd probably run into a "move bans" argument at that point), but nobody's honestly going to start dominating with a strategy that can be described as "just haxing your opponent," that's the exact opposite of "just haxing your opponent."

 

[Hipmonlee]

Well I think evasion may add a lot to the game.

It adds the dilemma of whether you should use evasion or not. You have to work out when evasion is appropriate, and when it is not. And judging by the responses in this thread, that is not an easy decision at all.

It also adds the dilemma of whether you should counter evasion or not? Is it worth it squeezing Perish Song onto my Celebi set just for evaders or should I just attack and hope. Which one increases my chances of winning with this particular team.

Evasion should be banned if the answers become no brainers. If it is so strong that the answers are pretty much always yes. This means Evasion is taking something away from the game. Like, there would no longer be the question of should I have Reflect or Lightscreen on my Celebi, it would always be I should use Perish Song. However I dont know if this is the case or not, I strongly suspect it isnt, but this is what a test would help with.

The concept of introducing luck to the game essentiall boils down to reducing the games ability to differentiate skill levels of two opponents. A game where a perfect player can win 51% of the time against a bad player because of so much luck is still a better game than Noughts and Crosses. As far as I am concerned it isnt the size of the difference, it is more about the amount of possible levels of ability. Like, if there can be players who win 51% of the time, and then the next best player wins at 50.9999999% of the time and then the next best player wins 50.9999998% then I think you have a good game. The important thing I guess is the fact that players can improve.. That you dont get situations where they just are stuck doing what they do and winning as much as they win. Or you dont get tiers of ability where everyone is exactly equal because they have all made the same realisations, but not made some others.

Have a nice day.

 

[DaveJ]

Weather or not it involves "luck" as one would call it should not be consideration. "Luck" factors, such as critical hits, attacks that aren't 100% accurate, flinchax etc are things good players take into account in team building in order to gain a statistical edge. They calculate that, while these moves may backfire sometimes, they can take precautions to limit the risk and that they can use these moves to improve their teams.

An over-centralized meta game is tedious, and players will play less because of this. This is a threat to the health of the metagame,

Evasion, therefore should only be banned if it proves to be over-centralizing.

 

[Veedrock]

You neglect that DT isn't something that you control and gamble with such as accuracy; it's a factor of "statistical management" that you can't control, your opponent controls it.

And crits are a part of the game that neither player controls, so they're irrelevant.

 

[scorchedsky]

And crits are a part of the game that neither player controls, so they're irrelevant.

except for focus energy, scope lens, super luck, high-crit moves, shell armor, etc.

 

[the_artic_one]

You neglect that DT isn't something that you control and gamble with such as accuracy; it's a factor of "statistical management" that you can't control, your opponent controls it.

Read hipmonlee's post again.

You control DT during team building by choosing whether or not to use/counter it.

 

[kylecat]

I support testing (as should be apparent if you've read any of my previous posts) but how the tests should be judged makes things complicated.

If evasion Gliscor or to a lesser extent Cacturne, Glacion, and Froslass are extremelly effective and overcentralize the metagame by requiring users of haze and perish song then it is plausible to say it causes a problem.

The problem is there's a lot of people viable to complain not because they can't counter it but because they'll be annoyed. While I think there are a lot of sets that could prove effective and be used, the majority of users probably won't use double team. Therefore there could be a lot of people who will vote to ban not because of it being overpowered but rather simply annoying. This is speculation of course, but I'm worried that there may be people who ban not because it's OP, but because they don't like it.

This brings to mind the much-pressed point that it should stay out because it adds more chance to the metagame. As previously mentioned, there's already a lot of luck in the metagame. Games can be won and lost by whether sketchy moves like hypnosis and stone edge hit. While some people think that chance makes the metagame worse, I disagree to a point. For me it makes the metagame exciting, and in some cases requires more skill, as good players must calculate risk vs. reward instead of always sending in surefire counters. If people want a strategy game completely devoid of chance, play Chess, it's fun. In my opinion, a little bit of chance makes the metagame more exciting.

Oh, and remember everybody, random chance evens out. One unlucky game in the long run has a brother of a lucky game. So unless double team was overpowered, it would take away a few games that you had in the bag, but in the long run chance evens out to whoever plays better.

 

[Veedrock]

Read hipmonlee's post again.

You control DT during team building by choosing whether or not to use/counter it.

I know that, but you can't technically "control" it. It's like crits and what scorchedsky said. You can affect it, but you don't have control (if you had control, you'd make every move a crit and you wouldn't allow evasion, correct?).

And trust me, I've read Hip's posts plenty.

The problem is there's a lot of people viable to complain not because they can't counter it but because they'll be annoyed. While I think there are a lot of sets that could prove effective and be used, the majority of users probably won't use double team. Therefore there could be a lot of people who will vote to ban not because of it being overpowered but rather simply annoying. This is speculation of course, but I'm worried that there may be people who ban not because it's OP, but because they don't like it.

The same thing occured with Shaymin-S. That's why we need to brainstorm because I doubt Jump/Aelous will like trying to decide who's eligible and qualified to vote based on their paragraphs when all it says is "I don't like it" or "After playing with it, it's a factor I dislike". What should people be looking for specifically to avoid such a scenario?

 

[kylecat]

The same thing occured with Shaymin-S. That's why we need to brainstorm because I doubt Jump/Aelous will like trying to decide who's eligible and qualified to vote based on their paragraphs when all it says is "I don't like it" or "After playing with it, it's a factor I dislike". What should people be looking for specifically to avoid such a scenario?

Well nothing's perfect of course when it comes to polls. Maybe a better idea instead of taking a poll right off the back if there is testing is to have a discussion. That's what's kind of happening with the new UU testing right? Evasion would probably be a broad change so maybe it would be a better idea is to have mods watch the discussion and judge if there is any recurring problems. Then we could vote on more particular things (for example brightpowder DT Gliscor).

 

[QibingZero]

Two things:

First off, the options for 'countering' DT are generally more problem-forming than just simply attempting to attack through it. Carrying never-miss attacks gimps your team excessively when you're not facing Evasion users. Trying to fit in Haze or Perish Song seriously limits team building. Perish Song Celebi is probably one of the few ways you could viably change your team and not feel as if you were overspecializing. This is very close to one of the arguments I have against OHKO moves - the potential 'counters' to each are way too specialized. Based on that fact, I don't believe it's as easy to 'control' Evasion as people are stating.


Secondly, as I noted in PR, I am at odds with Hip's position that even a 51% win ratio for the more skilled player is 'enough' for a competitive game. The 'best' player might have a 51% win ratio vs the 'second best' player, but overall they should be winning at a much higher percentage. Perhaps the best way to place my stance on this issue is that I believe a competitive game is perfect when the player who makes the most 'good' moves always wins. Obviously most competitive games are never going to even approach perfect, but if our focus is to be on competition we should definitely strive to eliminate effects which emphasize luck where doing so is reasonable (a commonly held 'unreasonable' situation is that of altering game mechanics).

 

[Hipmonlee]

The game you just described is the game I described played an infinite amount of times.

I mean, the 51% thing is crap in practice. Unless you can play thousands of games per second or something I dunno. Just because we cant play enough to distinguish a player with a 51% winrate or a 50.99999% win rate. The issue I have with your position is what happens if both players make exactly the same number of 'good' moves. A game would be bad if you had a situation where everyone makes roughly the same number of 'good' or 'bad' moves. I guess Paper Scissors Rock is an example of what I am talking about. If you make a 'good' move, you will win. But that still doesnt allow for differentiating players abilities because pretty much everyone is just as good as everyone else.

Have a nice day.

 

[scorchedsky]

All these arguments about it introducing luck and making the game more of a coin flip etc are ignoring my point completely.

All critical hit-effecting items and moves ARE ALLOWED IN STANDARD. Focus Energy does nothing but "increase hax." Using King's Rock does nothing but "increase hax." Hell, even sand veil/snow cloak do nothing but "increase hax." Yet these things are not banned. If we wanted to reduce hax we would ban these things. However, they are not overpowering, so we don't care. The same should be said of evasion modifiers.

Everyone can agree that there is no certainty as to whether evasion moves would be a dominant strategy. We have no precedent for banning things based entirely on hax, as demonstrated by our stance on critical hit moves. There is really no basis in precedent or logic to dismiss a tactic because it "relies entirely on hax." If we test evasion moves and find them to be a highly dominant strategy, then maybe they'll merit a ban. If they're not fantastic options, then you can't really ban them for being hax-dependent, unless you wanna ban other hax-dependent allowable strategies.

 

[HECTORtu]

I honestly don't see the point in testing Evasion, because to be honest, not only is it cheap, but it will just make the game less competitive by creating an entire new worry for players. What do we get if we unban Evasion moves? More hax... Isn't this why some people find this game horrible? Isn't this why the best players can't win tourneys? Are we just going to let the game depend on hax more than it does right now?

The fact that if Evasion moves will be used a lot, or a little, is pointless. Why do you care if its used a lot? Does it have different effects if it is? No it doesn't, it still represents the same amount of luck we have come to hate. Why just recently, my Heracross got Mean Looked by Umbreon which baton passed to Drifblim and used Flash + Sub like no tomorrow until it could go to ninjask and get everything done. So yeah that's Flash, now, imagine being able to Baton Pass Double Teams to your main sweeper. There are strategies out there that will use Evasion Moves to their best.

So whether they will be a dominant strategy seems irrelevant to me, its just making the game worse and more hax-dependant than it already is, which really is something huge to say.

 

[Veedrock]

I have been waiting for a bit and usually mash all of my responses into one post to prevent excessive posting, but I have to make an exception here.

I honestly don't see the point in testing Evasion, because to be honest, not only is it cheap, but it will just make the game less competitive by creating an entire new worry for players. What do we get if we unban Evasion moves? More hax... Isn't this why some people find this game horrible? Isn't this why the best players can't win tourneys? Are we just going to let the game depend on hax more than it does right now?

Did you read the original post? You know, where I talked about its drawbacks? I'll summarize: Evasion is not without its consequences. Yes, there's "more hax" (sometimes) but is it worth it? Not usually. But we get into that in the next paragraph.

The fact that if Evasion moves will be used a lot, or a little, is pointless. Why do you care if its used a lot? Does it have different effects if it is? No it doesn't,

Yes it does. Different effects of the move, no. Different effects of the metagame, yes. Look at the big picture here. If it's widespread, we have a problem (well, considering that it becomes centralized or dominating, which I foresee happening IF it becomes widespread). If it's contained to those poor players thinking hax will win them things, then no.

it still represents the same amount of luck we have come to hate. Why just recently, my Heracross got Mean Looked by Umbreon which baton passed to Drifblim and used Flash + Sub like no tomorrow until it could go to ninjask and get everything done. So yeah that's Flash, now, imagine being able to Baton Pass Double Teams to your main sweeper. There are strategies out there that will use Evasion Moves to their best.

That's a totally different scenario. You let your opponent do that (really, how did Umbreon trap Heracross who has STAB CC? but that's a different story). Actually, just from reading that I don't think you have any merit in the discussion. However, for the sake of topic, I'll keep going. Baton Passing has been brought up as a potential issue, but using that horrid example as one is not acceptable evidence that this could be bad.

As for the "luck we have come to hate," it's information management; if you use a 80% accuracy moves, YOU are aware of this, and if it misses you can't complain because YOU picked it. Crits are there, but that's pokemon. Live with it.

So whether they will be a dominant strategy seems irrelevant to me, its just making the game worse and more hax-dependant than it already is, which really is something huge to say.

Irrelevant to you? Well that's great, because we're building this metagame around you. Yes, it makes the game more "hax-dependant" but as the OP said (I suggest you read it), it's not without its drawbacks. You have way less versitility (only 3 other moves, 2 if you want another booster or a healing move), you're relying on the RNG to determine if you live or die (it's like staying on a move you know will kill and pray it misses), and there's better options out there.


Instead of whining, read arguments from both sides (the original posts provides a good deal from both sides, give that a shot at least) and then try coming back with a sensible argument.


EDIT: Woah, reading back through that I must've been pissed o.o' Point is, your post was massively biased with no sign or hint that you read any arguments (for either side, not just for). That is not appreciated or appropriate for the discussion at hand.

 

[Kalyst]

scorchedsky-I believe some people ban the usage of King's Rock, but don't quote me on that. Anything inducing hit crit rates like Super Luck are actually a part of some Pokes strategies, which ties into the whole skilled player venue, I suppose. But you're right we don't, for the most part, ban those things, but I guess that's just because the luck hax is so low on that, that it doesn't bother that many poeple? (But then, how would that make DT any worse? Hmmmm...)

To address some things with Veedok-

I am willing to test DT and if anyone else would like to as well, then I guess-let it be known. Theorizing and arguing all day long doesn't change the fact that, wich the extreme few cases like the run-in that Nachos (?) had against a Sad Veil Gliscor w/Brightpwder and DT under sandstorm, no one has actually fought things like this. Though, if and when we test this and poeple abuse the heck out of Sand Veil/ Snow Cloak pokes, then will it come down to banning the move, the set or the Pokemon itself?

As far as what kind of guidlines will go or "questions"- "Does allowing evasion also allow for other luck hax based moves/abilities/sets/items to be banned if used in juction w/ DT?" "Would a player be allowed to know if a person utilizes a DT team?" "Would use of DT be only limited to more 'advanced' players/ players who have battled more?" "Would we use, for testing, a DT based team vs a standard or DT vs DT?"

I think we should probably look for factors such as- greenhorn vs veteran players, the number of tests needed for more accurate data (which is kind of contadictory for something so hard to chart as chance), people cunducting testing, etc.

IMO, I don't think the game distinguishes between good or "bad" players and will luck hax as it so chooses-so if one "bad" player beats a "good" one due to five misses under DT...

I guess I'm saying that it won't matter too much if new trainers battle older veterans as far as usage of DT goes. How each uses their pokes though...that's something entirely different.

 

[Luxormaniac]

Overall, if we allow evasion moves, the complaints will be overwhelming. Insanely overwhelming, like the "skymin OHKO'ed my +6 CM rachi" times nine thousand.

Remember my earlier post. We ban things that screw up the metagame (GARCHOMP.) Like the banned and not in question OHKO moves, Evasion takes no skill to use.

It's all natural selection- survival of the fittest. The better player should win every time, through his team building and prediction. DT gives the little guy a chance. When does that happen in nature?
Sparrows can't counter hawks. It's the truth.

 

[RaikouLover]

Originally Posted by Veedrock
That's a totally different scenario. You let your opponent do that (really, how did Umbreon trap Heracross who has STAB CC?

I take it you've never heard of Chople Berry Mean Look passing Umbreon? Hell, CS Heracross doesn't OHKO Umbreon anyway.

But thats beside the point. My opinion is that evasion is just frowned upon. Its one of those reasons I prefer the shoddy environment over the bullshit I had to deal with in Pokemon Stadium when I was younger (losing tournament matches because some asshole gets Fissure to hit on all three pokemon or uses DT and your moves all miss while he gets to +6 just sucks and makes you want to kill the game). Its more of an annoyance, and isn't helpful to the metagame at all. So its not really a question of is it "broken." Its more like most of us don't want to be bothered with it. We have a hard enough time just accepting new pokemon into OU, let alone rules.

If we do test evasion though, I will proudly be breaking out my Surf / Double Team / Rest / Calm Mind Suicune, just for annoyance. And don't cling to your "Vaporeon walls this bullshit", Double Team = easy stall...

 

[QibingZero]

All these arguments about it introducing luck and making the game more of a coin flip etc are ignoring my point completely.

All critical hit-effecting items and moves ARE ALLOWED IN STANDARD. Focus Energy does nothing but "increase hax." Using King's Rock does nothing but "increase hax." Hell, even sand veil/snow cloak do nothing but "increase hax." Yet these things are not banned. If we wanted to reduce hax we would ban these things. However, they are not overpowering, so we don't care. The same should be said of evasion modifiers.

Everyone can agree that there is no certainty as to whether evasion moves would be a dominant strategy. We have no precedent for banning things based entirely on hax, as demonstrated by our stance on critical hit moves. There is really no basis in precedent or logic to dismiss a tactic because it "relies entirely on hax." If we test evasion moves and find them to be a highly dominant strategy, then maybe they'll merit a ban. If they're not fantastic options, then you can't really ban them for being hax-dependent, unless you wanna ban other hax-dependent allowable strategies.

The difference is:

'Luck-based items' have a tradeoff. You only get one item, and choosing luck over power will often cause you to lose when you should have won. It's almost like choosing Focus Energy over Swords Dance.

'Luck-based moves' also have a tradeoff. Using Hydro Pump over Surf, Night Slash over Crunch, etc. OHKOs are unique in that they do not work like other moves as far as resistances go. You can't say you're making a tradeoff - what would you compare it to?

'Luck-based abilities' are part of the game, and removing that aspect would require banning of pokemon or changing of game mechanics.

The game you just described is the game I described played an infinite amount of times.

I mean, the 51% thing is crap in practice. Unless you can play thousands of games per second or something I dunno. Just because we cant play enough to distinguish a player with a 51% winrate or a 50.99999% win rate. The issue I have with your position is what happens if both players make exactly the same number of 'good' moves. A game would be bad if you had a situation where everyone makes roughly the same number of 'good' or 'bad' moves. I guess Paper Scissors Rock is an example of what I am talking about. If you make a 'good' move, you will win. But that still doesnt allow for differentiating players abilities because pretty much everyone is just as good as everyone else.

Have a nice day.

The thing is, this is pretty much impossible to even think about happening when considering the unique nature of every turn of pokemon, and the fact that we also take team-building into account as part of player skill. In that, we consider the team that can reliably win more on average to be the best, but that doesn't mean that 'best' team, even played by the 'best' player will win every game. It's reasonable to expect the best team to always have a bad matchup with another team here or there.

Also, I see no problem with a situation in which two players are equally matched, and I'm not quite sure I understand your mention of Rock Paper Scissors.

 

[Kalyst]

Overall, if we allow evasion moves, the complaints will be overwhelming. Insanely overwhelming, like the "skymin OHKO'ed my +6 CM rachi" times nine thousand.

Remember my earlier post. We ban things that screw up the metagame (GARCHOMP.) Like the banned and not in question OHKO moves, Evasion takes no skill to use.

It's all natural selection- survival of the fittest. The better player should win every time, through his team building and prediction. DT gives the little guy a chance. When does that happen in nature?
Sparrows can't counter hawks. It's the truth.

Forgive me, but I can't help responding to this. :)

I'm not sure how you can extend "the not in question" argument to cover Evasion when some people here are clearly questioning it. OHKO is, however not in question, but that's a bit beside the point. I think I missed your post and if it explained why you think Evasion takes no skill, then you can ignore me asking why you believe that way. ><

And if you want to go the nature route, that's a fun arena for me. Sparrows can't counter hawks head-on, but the little guys can go places the big boys can't. And as far as survival of the fittest goes, have you ever seen the youtube vid with the lion trying to take down a water buffolo and a few select members coming back to stave him off? Sure, those examples are rarer, but they do happen. And how about us humans? Survival of the fitest? We have welfare and homeless shelters and free food for the needy-that doesn't follow the laws of nature. Then again, we make little creatures called Pokemon and hotly contests them in full scaled debates, so I guess we're just a natural anomoly.

As far as the better player aways winning, haven't we always seen that one crit change everything? Some days you win and some days you loose-just as some days the bird gets the worm and scores the mate and other days, they don't-but with us, we shrug it off and move on. The poor birds can't. :(

 

[Veedrock]

scorchedsky-I believe some people ban the usage of King's Rock, but don't quote me on that. Anything inducing hit crit rates like Super Luck are actually a part of some Pokes strategies, which ties into the whole skilled player venue, I suppose. But you're right we don't, for the most part, ban those things, but I guess that's just because the luck hax is so low on that, that it doesn't bother that many poeple? (But then, how would that make DT any worse? Hmmmm...)

Some games do ban it (hax item clause), but it's generally allowed.

Another thing that should be thrown out that: just because so and so isn't banned doesn't mean another thing shouldn't be. That's a flawed and pointless argument.

Um, the rest is going to be long and probably badly worded (I'm bad at wording long things). There is a conclusion near the bottom of your quotes. I'll bold it if you just want to skip there.

To address some things with Veedok-

I am willing to test DT and if anyone else would like to as well, then I guess-let it be known. Theorizing and arguing all day long doesn't change the fact that, wich the extreme few cases like the run-in that Nachos (?) had against a Sad Veil Gliscor w/Brightpwder and DT under sandstorm, no one has actually fought things like this. Though, if and when we test this and poeple abuse the heck out of Sand Veil/ Snow Cloak pokes, then will it come down to banning the move, the set or the Pokemon itself?

The lack of actual tests/encounters is why we only have theory to go off (and as seen, it's not the most effective approach). I actually used to have a team with Manaphy that was used when discussing its tier (and I effectively made them think twice about if it should be allowed). I would do something like this with double team if I had any understanding or idea of how to do it effectively. I'll end up one of the "poor" players that used it but it doesn't do anything then perhaps prolong the game (which is not good with my internet connection).

If it's a combination of moves (double team/minimize + baton pass), I'm all for a ban if it proves too devestating. Now if its banning the move on one (or a few) specific pokemon, I don't think that's right. Then it either comes down to banning the pokemon (which Blame Game is for) or banning the move altogether (which as far as I'm concerned, is my view on the matter). So, the question is, do these pokemon become "broken" or just annoying?

As far as what kind of guidlines will go or "questions"- "Does allowing evasion also allow for other luck hax based moves/abilities/sets/items to be banned if used in juction w/ DT?"

I don't see why it should be. If somebody can get Jirachi 2-3 DT boosts and start flinching things here and there, good on them. But can they do that; that's the question. If any combination becomes too powerful (exception to Baton Pass, which I've gone over), then it should be brought up and one or the other removed completely. We can't make exceptions for everything that's too strong if it's not limited to one (as seen with people suggesting a Yache Berry ban on Garchomp).

"Would a player be allowed to know if a person utilizes a DT team?"

Um, no? I don't know quite what you mean, but if I understand correctly, revealing a person's moveset before a match shouldn't be considered.

"Would use of DT be only limited to more 'advanced' players/ players who have battled more?"

Hm, I think I went over this with Blame Game. He mentioned that DT may only be usable by experienced players. But if this is the case (and assuming that they're advanced, they'll be winning if they keep using it), it will become widespread and even novice players with experiment and become skilled with it. With this outbreak of DT and 30 minute long matches, would DT in fact be centralized?

"Would we use, for testing, a DT based team vs a standard or DT vs DT?"

There's many possibilities here. I would let the game decide and not force it. If 2 people are on the suspect ladder right now and neither of them have Latias, the ladder doesn't forbid them from playing each other. It becomes standard vs. standard. If we force it to be DT vs DT, we get no real results other than if everybody used it, this is how matches would be (no real result) (admittingly, DT vs DT would be funny). In standard vs DT, we get a definitive record of which is better; if standard is better then DT is useless and either allowed and neglected, or stays banned and it's practically the same result.

Now, what if DT starts to win? More people use it. And what happens when more people use it? People flock to counter it. So now we have Anti-DT vs DT. Anti wins in that matchup. Then with Anti-DT winning, a team is needed to beat it, and standard reemerges. So it either continues on this cycle or people get smart and try to jump out of place, and with only 3 teams in play, you have a 33% chance to win, lose, or fight it out every time you click "Find Match". Overcentralization around evasion.

I think we should probably look for factors such as- greenhorn vs veteran players, the number of tests needed for more accurate data (which is kind of contadictory for something so hard to
chart as chance), people cunducting testing, etc.

Now what seperates greenhorn from veteran? There's an issue with the skill gap; with DT (used by either side) and the vet wins every time, we only see that DT doesn't affect skill gaps. Now if the novice wins with DT multiple times, it shows that DT makes the game a hax breeding ground and ruins the game (arguably). If the novice wins (without a counter team) while the vet uses DT, it shows that DT actually reduces versitily and isn't worth it. In conclusion, that would be a good preliminary test to see if DT affects the outcome of matches. It would be difficult to manage and get accurate data though, as you said.

I guess I'm saying that it won't matter too much if new trainers battle older veterans as far as usage of DT goes. How each uses their pokes though...that's something entirely different.

Another reason why it'll be hard to get data. Teams differ vastly, so it may just be one team over another for all we know.

Conclusion: No offense, but this is why I don't think we should go for concrete evidence, like with suspect pokemon. We don't look to see if one team using the suspect triumphs over one without or visa versa, good player vs bad and whatnot; we know the results will be all over the place, so the test is only to show if it actually affects the game to a certain point (broken or not broken, mainly).

That's just how it should be tested, but it doesn't answer what we should look for (that still needs to be determined).

Overall, if we allow evasion moves, the complaints will be overwhelming. Insanely overwhelming, like the "skymin OHKO'ed my +6 CM rachi" times nine thousand.

That's what the new voting system is supposed to fix (it's still theory though). This is why we need to determine what to look for; so that when Jumpman/Aelous (am I spelling his name wrong? hrm..) look through the "lower" division of voters, they can know what they're actually looking for rather than only singling out complaints.

Remember my earlier post. We ban things that screw up the metagame (GARCHOMP.) Like the banned and not in question OHKO moves, Evasion takes no skill to use.

Eh, I have to disagree. Based on the arguments for allowing evasion, it doesn't look to take no skill; skill is needed to make up for moveslot it takes and time it takes to set up. OHKO moves are nothing like that.

It's all natural selection- survival of the fittest. The better player should win every time, through his team building and prediction. DT gives the little guy a chance. When does that happen in nature?
Sparrows can't counter hawks. It's the truth.

This is pokemon though. Crits also give the little guy a chance. As do random misses (though the better player KNOWS the risk). I've had much worse players than myself win via 5-6 crits. Pokemon always gives the little guy a chance, but DT may actually fix that because only adequate players may be able to use it correctly. I do see where you're coming from though.

And the "better player" should win everytime thing isn't always true either. In chess, the better player may win game one, but game two is a whole nother story. ;)

 

[scorchedsky]

The difference is:

'Luck-based items' have a tradeoff. You only get one item, and choosing luck over power will often cause you to lose when you should have won. It's almost like choosing Focus Energy over Swords Dance.

'Luck-based moves' also have a tradeoff. Using Hydro Pump over Surf, Night Slash over Crunch, etc. OHKOs are unique in that they do not work like other moves as far as resistances go. You can't say you're making a tradeoff - what would you compare it to?

'Luck-based abilities' are part of the game, and removing that aspect would require banning of pokemon or changing of game mechanics.

So doubleteam/minimize just appear on your moveset? You only get 4 moves, and choosing luck over power will often cause you to lose when you should have won. It's exactly like choosing Double Team over Calm Mind.

Seriously, if something's obviously Uber, then testing it will be easy and quick, it'll be obvious and we'll re-ban it. But there really is no reasonable argument that double team should not be tested, unless we make other drastic changes to the metagame.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I honestly don't see the point in testing Evasion, because to be honest, not only is it cheap, but it will just make the game less competitive by creating an entire new worry for players.

More worries for players = more opportunity for better players to demonstrate their skill.

What do we get if we unban Evasion moves? More hax... Isn't this why some people find this game horrible? Isn't this why the best players can't win tourneys? Are we just going to let the game depend on hax more than it does right now?

Did you read this thread dude? If we unban Evasion moves we may not get more hax, I dont think that we will. I think that it will be much easier to beat bad players who are using DT because DT isnt really a very good move. I expect people will come up with 1 or 2 strategies that have extremely high risk and high reward and a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon. But all you have to do is have a plan for beating those strategies and you wont have to worry.

Furthermore more hax is actually a complicated concept that you really havent shown any comprehension of. For instance, lets say you are better than me at pokemon, but only by a little bit. Lets say you beat me 51% of the time when we battle. Then Evasion is added to the game, it is either very good or it isnt but either way, as a better player, you are more able to cope with the new Evasion including metagame than me. Do you think this will make it more likely that I will beat you? Doesnt that mean we have removed hax from the game?

I dont think that pokemon is a game where you can make a nice tidy hierarchy of players and say that all players will beat any lower ranked player at least 50% of the time. So how are you going to convince me that banning DT reduces the luck in the game. If you beat poor players less often, how can we be sure that isnt because you just suck at facing/using DT.

If you want to convince me that removing luck from the game is desirable, you are going to have to come up with some kind of convincing explanation of what removing luck from the game actually entails. I dont think you can do it.

If the best players cant win tournaments it's probably because they arent actually the best players only they dont realise it. As far as I can tell the people who have been winning tournaments are all damn good at pokemon.

The fact that if Evasion moves will be used a lot, or a little, is pointless. Why do you care if its used a lot? Does it have different effects if it is? No it doesn't, it still represents the same amount of luck we have come to hate.

Actually it does have different effects if it is used a lot. It has surprise effects if it isnt used much. If it is used often you can plan to take advantage of turns your opponent spends using DT, setting up with your own poke or something..

And if you hate pokemon why do you play it?

Why just recently, my Heracross got Mean Looked by Umbreon which baton passed to Drifblim and used Flash + Sub like no tomorrow until it could go to ninjask and get everything done. So yeah that's Flash, now, imagine being able to Baton Pass Double Teams to your main sweeper. There are strategies out there that will use Evasion Moves to their best.

Ok, imagining that same scenario with double team and it seems to be pretty much exactly the same as what you just described. The one difference is your Heracross could have used Double Team, and then you would have had a decent chance at killing whatever was baton passed to..

So whether they will be a dominant strategy seems irrelevant to me, its just making the game worse and more hax-dependant than it already is, which really is something huge to say.

Ok, so now you need to actually convince us that double team will make the game worse and more hax-dependant rather than just declaring that it will. And like I say, I dont think you can do it. Not with theorymon at least. That's why I want a test.

Overall, if we allow evasion moves, the complaints will be overwhelming. Insanely overwhelming, like the "skymin OHKO'ed my +6 CM rachi" times nine thousand.

Direct them to me, I wont mind putting them straight.

Remember my earlier post. We ban things that screw up the metagame (GARCHOMP.) Like the banned and not in question OHKO moves, Evasion takes no skill to use.

Actually it does take quite a bit of skill to use. Even back in RBY when Evasion really was broken as hell, it took skill to use.

It's all natural selection- survival of the fittest. The better player should win every time, through his team building and prediction. DT gives the little guy a chance. When does that happen in nature?
Sparrows can't counter hawks. It's the truth.

DT Spearow can't counter Salamence either.

But thats beside the point. My opinion is that evasion is just frowned upon. Its one of those reasons I prefer the shoddy environment over the bullshit I had to deal with in Pokemon Stadium when I was younger (losing tournament matches because some asshole gets Fissure to hit on all three pokemon or uses DT and your moves all miss while he gets to +6 just sucks and makes you want to kill the game).

Actually, I think this is a question of is it broken. Losing Stadium matches for any reason is actually very easy, and this isnt Stadium. Things may well be broken in Stadium that arent broken in 6v6 because you just havent got enough pokemon to counter them. I dont know, but this really doesnt seem like a strong argument to me.

Its more of an annoyance, and isn't helpful to the metagame at all. So its not really a question of is it "broken." Its more like most of us don't want to be bothered with it. We have a hard enough time just accepting new pokemon into OU, let alone rules.

I already explained why I think it would be helpful to the metagame. You should back this statement up.

And as for you having a hard time, well quite frankly I dont care. I'm sorry, but did you really think that was going to work?

If we do test evasion though, I will proudly be breaking out my Surf / Double Team / Rest / Calm Mind Suicune, just for annoyance. And don't cling to your "Vaporeon walls this bullshit", Double Team = easy stall...

What about my "that set is only about as good as most other Suicune sets" bullshit. Seriously, how are you going to find time to set up with CM and DT before you have to rest? Like, say you come in on my Heatran. So you are going to DT? I switch to Zapdos and you are in a much worse situation than if you had Calm Minded. If you Calm Minded, then you are probably worse off than if you had Sleep Talk or Ice Beam in the movset. I am not saying DT Cune is unuseable, but I dont think it's broken. And DT Cune is just about as good as I can come with as far as DT using sets go as well..

Also, I see no problem with a situation in which two players are equally matched, and I'm not quite sure I understand your mention of Rock Paper Scissors.

RPS is a game that fits your definition of an ideal game. If you make more right moves than your opponent you win 100% of the time. In this case there just happens to be only one move in the game.

Have a nice day.