Evasion: Test or Ban?

[astrohawke]

Who cares what your statistics can show if conceptually they remove the most basic aspects of why you play a game to begin with?

I don't think you should generalize why people decide to play a game. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy the luck aspects of any game because that element of randomness adds "fun" and "variety" to a game for lack of better terms. As others have said, if we wanted to play games based entirely on skill we would just go play chess. Most games have that element of randomness and that's really what makes them unpredictable and interesting.

For those saying that it would unnecessarily drag out the game, you might want to consider the reverse is also true. Suppose gyarados is out and I send in porygon2. The gyarados has pretty much no choice but to switch out or die and I can predict this 95% of the time against a good player. Thus it takes me longer to kill it because it's running away from me every time. If it's got DT however, then the player can switch out as normal and nothing has changed OR he can take that chance and keep it in and suddenly I may have just killed a gyarados with p2 when I normally wouldn't be given the chance to, speeding up the game. That's just an example though but something to consider.

Instead of viewing luck as something that decreases skill, we could see it as just another strategy in pokemon. I could make a team based around parafusion + flinch + evasion and that would serve to maximize my luck but it would just be the strategy I'm employing. It's just a much more high risk, high reward strategy than something like sandstorm or stall which are more stable. I think risk/reward makes a game more interesting. Consider why people can get so addicted to something like gambling.

Personally I welcome evasion as a challenge for "skilled" players to overcome. I can say it will definitely piss me off sometimes as it will everyone else but it doesn't mean I won't enjoy the challenge of trying to come back from missing a vital attack.

 

[kamikaen]

Or, your Porygon2 could spend 5 turns wasting Thunderbolt's PP. Evasion can be overcome, yeah, but it can't really be done with "skill", aside from a couple of moves like Yawn. There are plenty of ways an individual player can tip the odds so that they get a challenge, but not everyone wants to be the underdog, I think that most of us want battles with people close to our own skill level.

 

[the_artic_one]

I wish people would stop bringing BT into this, the BT's RNG cheats like crazy.

 

[Dormin]

Garchomp is the perfect example of why not to unban evasion moves. Think about it, how many times have you or someone you were watching get luckfucked by 20% sand veil? Do we really want other pokes to enjoy such a broken luxury? Garchomp has already overcentralized the metagame enough, do we want Machamp to as well? Or the move Haze? Case closed in my opinion.

 

[Bliksem]

If it's tested, I think people will find that the combination of Double Team and Baton Pass is broken, while neither of the two moves seperately are that bad.

Also, people are not really being wise. I read mention of a Crescelia with Double Team, Calm Mind, Moonlight and an attack. Well, let's first see what attacks are availible. Ice Beam, Psychic, Energy Ball, Shadow Ball, Hidden Power [Random]. I doubt Charge Beam would be useful. Well, out of those, let's see. Ice Beam, might as well send in Walrein or Lapras. Psychic; hello Tyranitar or any other Dark-type Pokemon, but mainly just Tyranitar. Energy Ball, I'd like you to notice Venusaur. Shadow Ball, meet Blissey. Hidden Power [Random] would probably just meet a Steel-type. Let's not forget Toxic which almost every Pokemon can learn and would absolutely destroy Crescelia as she has no way to clear it without Rest. And those turns spent sleeping are turns you can bring in something that has a more certain chance of hitting.

Double Team isn't viable on sweepers. Not as part of their moveset. It either lowers their ability to deal damage or weakens their type coverage. Porygon Z's Nasty Plot, Tri-Attack, Dark Pulse, Ice Beam isn't nearly so frightening when it has to sacrifice type coverage. Gengar? Where would it place Double Team? Over Hypnosis? Thunderbolt? Hidden Power? Will-O-Wisp? One of its other countless and far more useful slots?

Like I said before, I think the biggest problem will come from Double Team being paired with Baton Pass. If anything, that particular move combination should be the one banned. If particular things are overpowered, just those things should be the ones banned.

 

[Dragontamer]

Aldaron, jrrrr, I can't argue with that premise. I personally believe that these decisions should be made on fun and even the status quo should be factored in. Changing the metagame after all... is a Game Designer's decision and not a gamer's decision. Your arguments reflect my argument during the Wobbuffet discussion.

Nevertheless, I feel that double team can contribute to the game. Without testing, we have removed an entire aspect of this game perhaps unfairly. We add not only double team to the metagame, but a host of new attacks like Vital Throw, Odor Sleuth, Foresight, and all the Pokemon who can benefit from these attacks. We open up the metagame to new counters, new strategies, and new pokemon, as opposed to closing out all chances of counters and possibly adding a setup turn to already overpowered pokemon like Lucario or Gyarados (Wobbuffet -> Encore). A larger metagame does not necessarily mean a better one of course, which is why I'm open for testing and not for an immediate unban. While I'm unsure how to go about testing something like that properly, I do feel that the mechanics of Double Team have changed enough to warrant at least a test... in comparison to Advance anyway.

Perhaps most important about Double Team... it is an opportunity to provide strict control of probabilities on your team. "On the average" estimates (like what I've been doing), are great for the long run, but on the day to day battle you rarely will actually have a long enough battle for you to reach the average.

Indeed, battles are short enough that significant deviation from the average is possible. The analysis required for these kinds of short term is less trivial but still doable. It adds a significant complexity to the game that simply does not exist now. Adding double team adds the management of probability to the Gameplay, and clearly more skilled players will manage probability better than less skilled players.

Finally, as for Obi's point about the tournament formats... perhaps double team isn't appropriate for a classic single elimination tournament. It does make the end result more unreliable. Nevertheless, what we have here right now is the Shoddybattle ladder, and a large enough set of games is played on it to make these rare occurrences truely rare. I can think of a few tournament formats that would be better for Pokemon anyway... considering how luck is a big part of it. (IE: Round Robin, Swiss format, etc. etc.)

-----------

Obi, here are my calculations that you requested. For a single turn of Cosmic Power vs Double Team...

For each turn... with 1 boost..
1. 6.25% of the time you take 2x damage (Critical hit), 93.75% of the time you take 2/3 damage (non-critical hit). This averages out to 75% damage in the long run, even with critical hits factored in.

2. Double Team: 75% of the time, the attack hits. 25% of the time, the attack doesn't hit. 6.25% of the time when the attack hits (or 4.6875% of the time overall), it is a critical hit. This comes out to 75% * 1.0625 or the average amount of damage (including critical hits) * the chance of hit... or 79.6875% damage in the long run.

Clearly, Double Team takes more damage in the long run.

---------

Case 2: 2 Cosmic Powers and 2 Double Teams.

1. 2x Cosmic Power doubles your defense. You take 2x damage 6.25% of the time and 1/2 damage 93.75% of the time. This is 59.375% damage in the long run.

2. 2x Double Team gives you 40% evasion. Including critical hits (1.0625x damage in the long run), that is an average of 63.75% damage in the long run.

Again, double-team loses to Cosmic Power, even with Critical hit hax factored in.

--------

Case 3: 3x boosts

1. 3x Cosmic Power gives you reduces your damage by 60% (you take only 40% of the damage). So you take 2x damage 6.25% of the time, and .4 damage 93.75% of the time. Blah blah blah, 50% damage in the long run.

2. 3x Double team gives you 50% evasion. 1.0625x damage in the long run (including critical hits), you got 53.125% damage with 3x double team in the long run.

Double Team is still behind.

----------

Skipping to case 6: 6x boost

1. 6x Cosmic Power reduces your damage by 75%. Blah blah blah, 35.93% damage in the long run.

2. 6x Double Team gives 66.6% evasion. Blah blah, 35.42% damage in the long run.

So in the cases for 1x boost, 2x boost, and 3x boost, Double Team is worse in the long run, even after factoring in Critical Hits. At 6x boost, Double Team is only slightly better due to the chances of critical hit... and you still have to make up for being behind for 5 turns.

Or, your Porygon2 could spend 5 turns wasting Thunderbolt's PP.

Check the probabilities yo. The numbers are in favor of Porygon2 hitting on the first turn. And with an OHKO on T-Bolt vs Gyara... all you need is one turn.

Your opponent will have to play 1024 battles to get only a 63% chance of seeing 5 turns of misses from a single layer of Double Team. 37% of the time, it will take him more battles. In fact, it is very possible to go your whole life and never see 5 misses on a single layer of Double Team.

Of course... I think it is better if you didn't base your argument on something that has a 0.09765625% chance of happening. (Less than a tenth of 1 percent)

 

[kamikaen]

It was an exaggeration, but I guess I'm probably not supposed to use those. u_u I have said in this thread that DT probably won't end up as broken as I perceive it, but it adds luck to the game, so it doesn't matter all that much.

That number is impressive, but what if Gyara keeps DTing the longer it survives?

But the argument was against this:

Suppose gyarados is out and I send in porygon2. The gyarados has pretty much no choice but to switch out or die and I can predict this 95% of the time against a good player. Thus it takes me longer to kill it because it's running away from me every time. If it's got DT however, then the player can switch out as normal and nothing has changed OR he can take that chance and keep it in and suddenly I may have just killed a gyarados with p2 when I normally wouldn't be given the chance to, speeding up the game. That's just an example though but something to consider.

A better argument might say that only a dumb player would leave his once-DT'd Gyara out against something inevitably packing Thunderbolt. In that case, stupidity shortened the game. If the Gyarados already has many DTs, and your P2 hits it despite that, then luck shortened the game.

 

[obi]

math

I was expecting Double Team to pull ahead at around 3 turns, not 6! In Double Team's defense, it also reduces the chance of things like Ice Beam freeze, Flamethrower burn, etc. I guess it really comes down to something similar to Flamethrower vs. Fire Blast. Fire Blast is better on the average, but when you factor in overkill (Forretress is OHKOed by either, so Fire Blast is only 85% as good), things become nearly impossible to calculate.

Your opponent will have to play 1024 battles to get only a 63% chance of seeing 5 turns of misses from a single layer of Double Team. 37% of the time, it will take him more battles. In fact, it is very possible to go your whole life and never see 5 misses on a single layer of Double Team.

Just to clarify, that's 5 in a row, not 5 total.

 

[Dragontamer]

That number is impressive, but what if Gyara keeps DTing the longer it survives?

Assuming the sequence of turns are like this...

Gyarados switches in
XXX craps in its pants

Gyarados uses Double Team
Porygon2 Switches in

Gyarados uses Double Team
Porygon2 uses T-Bolt. It misses

Gyarados uses Double Team
Porygon2 uses T-Bolt. It misses

Gyarados uses Double Team.
Porygon2 uses T-bolt. It misses.

Gyarados uses Double Team.
Porygon2 uses T-bolt. It misses.

5 Double Teams on 5 turns on a somewhat realistic looking battle situation. This above sequence has a ~7% chance of happening, or ~once every 14 battles. I admit this is higher than I expected, but still too low for it to be an effective strategy. (Swampert counters CB Tar's Crunch 80% of the time. 20% of the time... it gets hit by a defense drop and is 2-hit KOed. I'd say Swampert still counters CB Tar however.)

Just to clarify, that's 5 in a row, not 5 total.

Little things like that matter a lot in probability >_> Yes, 5 times in a row.

I was expecting Double Team to pull ahead at around 3 turns, not 6! In Double Team's defense, it also reduces the chance of things like Ice Beam freeze, Flamethrower burn, etc. I guess it really comes down to something similar to Flamethrower vs. Fire Blast. Fire Blast is better on the average, but when you factor in overkill (Forretress is OHKOed by either, so Fire Blast is only 85% as good), things become nearly impossible to calculate.

Indeed. However, I find it hard to believe that a pokemon that can be OHKOed by the opponent will leave him in, even if he manages to get 2 DTs by the hit (like the Gyarados vs Porygon2 situation above).

 

[X-Act]

You don't counter DT Gyarados by trying to Thunderbolt it.

How about Uxie switches in and uses Yawn?

Or Weezing switches in and uses Haze?

Anyway, in RBY and GSC, DT being banned was somewhat defensible, since there weren't enough counters for it. Haze had a normal accuracy modifier associated with it, etc. In DP, however, the number of moves that counter Double Team are a lot. Defog lowers evasion by one level and always hits. Haze always hits. Foresight always hits, Miracle Eye always hits, Odor Sleuth always hits. Yawn always hits. Pain Split always hits. Destiny Bond always hits. Perish Song always hits. Gamefreak realised that something needed to be done with evasion and duly responded. Why can't we allow them and then try to counter them?

There's only one way to counter Stealth Rock, Spikes AND Toxic Spikes combined: Rapid Spin. And yet these aren't banned! There are a lot of ways of countering Double Team, and yet it is banned! Why?

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

As much as I feel like a whiny bitch for saying this, it sucks when it seems that everyone ignores your posts.

I'll try to make this one a little less tl;dr.

We have no guarantee that allowing Double Team will even increase the amount of luck in the metagame. Once the dust settles, it may turn out that the metagame has shifted toward more accurate moves to counter Double Team. It's even possible that less randomness will actually come into play in the final product. I don't believe that this will happen, but it could happen. We really won't have any idea unless we test it.

I'm with X-Act 100% on this. There are enough options available (options that are useful outside of countering evasion), that there's no centralization- or power-based argument for banning Double Team.

 

[Cathy]

Skill and statistical elements are not opposing factors. Lots of people talk about minimising luck, but a large amount of the skill in pokemon comes from manipulating probability in your favour: skill can come from the statistical elements. A lot of games work like this (imagine talk of trying to minimise luck in Poker!). It's the statistical elements that make pokemon the sort of game it is, and there are statistical elements at all levels of the game -- right down to the damage formula. It's what gives the game its character, not something to be minimised.

This means that any single match does not prove that one player is better than another, but that is just a fact of pokemon. Even without statistical elements, this exists because of team match ups, and those alone are a reason why single elimination tournaments are not workable.

I don't think Double Team should be banned, and it's even sketchy to talk about it centralising the game. Let's suppose we unbanned Double Team and now one pokemon is totally broken. Do we ban Double Team or that pokemon? It would probably be simpler to ban the pokemon, but that remains to be seen. It's quite possible that it won't cause any centralisation in the first place; this can in fact be measured.

As for player reception, certainly most players are opposed to Double Team. But so what? This could change after the new rules set in. Considering player opinion as the deciding factor here just locks us into possibly bad rules based on conservatism. The main goal should to make the rules be as simple as possible such that the game is sufficiently decentralised.

 

[astrohawke]

A better argument might say that only a dumb player would leave his once-DT'd Gyara out against something inevitably packing Thunderbolt. In that case, stupidity shortened the game. If the Gyarados already has many DTs, and your P2 hits it despite that, then luck shortened the game.

That was exactly my argument against those saying that DT strictly will make the game more stall based and boring. At worst, people are still gonna be afraid to keep something in after using DT to be OHKOed and therefore the metagame has not changed at all in terms of length.

But then DT also introduces the possibilities of shortening the game whether it's because of "stupidity" (but I say it's more of a gamble not necessarily stupid) or because of luck as you say. Either way, DT does not guarantee a longer more stallish metagame. It can go both ways.

And for those of you saying that DT is overpowered and over centralizing, please don't. I think the majority of the people here agree that it really is no longer overpowered in the DP environment nor is it likely to be over centralizing. If garchomp was really that bad in terms of being overpowered and over centralizing that's more than enough reason for it to be uber yet it's not. In any case you can't really compare sand veil to DT because sand veil evasion is innate while it takes a moveslot and a turn to use DT. Even if DT is somehow overpowered and over centralizing, it can only be proven by testing. There's no point saying:"It just is, look at garchomp, case closed."

The only valid argument now against DT is whether or not the luck introduced is acceptable and whether or not that luck can benefit the game in terms of opening up new strategies and possibilities.

 

[ODDish]

Oddish is bringing an irrelevant point into this discussion.

I didn't make any points. Points are statements presenting an argument, supported by evidence. I asked questions, in an attempt to better understand this argument. If this was not the place to ask such questions I apologise ... however Slice n Dice post read as if there were some agreed definition of hax which prompted my questions.

 

[eric the espeon]

I think it should be tested, I mean what do we have to lose from testing?

 

[phalanx]

if we are trying to minimize luck then the luck boosting items have to go...

anyway
ninjask@focus sash
double team
mud slap
baton pass
x-scissor
goodbye and goodnight and btw i think mud slap slips through the evasion clause.
edit: tested mud slap it does lower evasion

 

[X-Act]

if we are trying to minimize luck then the luck boosting items have to go...

anyway
ninjask@focus sash
double team
mud slap
baton pass
x-scissor
goodbye and goodnight and btw i think mud slap slips through the evasion clause.
edit: tested mud slap it does lower evasion

Umm, what do you want to achieve with this set, exactly? Besides the fact that a simple Shock Wave would probably OHKO Ninjask, or certainly 2HKO, even if people decide not to use Shock Wave, they can still use the multitude of moves I mentioned before to counter it.

And Mud Slap does not lower evasion. It lowers the accuracy of the opponent.

 

[phalanx]

which is the equivilant of raising evasion its a novelty hax jask it has sash btw, maybe it should have brightpowder :/

 

[Aldaron]

Sorry Oddish, I didn't mean to come of like an aggressive dickwad there :X

I was just mentioning that the point about other hax situations shouldn't be considered.

Skill and statistical elements are not opposing factors. Lots of people talk about minimising luck, but a large amount of the skill in pokemon comes from manipulating probability in your favour: skill can come from the statistical elements. A lot of games work like this (imagine talk of trying to minimise luck in Poker!). It's the statistical elements that make pokemon the sort of game it is, and there are statistical elements at all levels of the game -- right down to the damage formula. It's what gives the game its character, not something to be minimised.

Man, I can't say how much I disagree with the implications of this post, but I'll just address what is explicitly stated. Sure, Skill and statistical elements are not opposing factors, but skill is so much more than simply statistical elements. Some skill might be manipulating probability in your favor, but the entire point of most of the skilled players who play this game, Colin, is that we wish to reduce that aspect of "skill."

As for the "it's the statistical elements that make pokemon the sort of game it is" comment...well duh. A game's mechanics make it the game that it is...that is obvious. What is important to note is that team building and preparation and analysis of your in-battle opponent should both be larger factors in determining "the sort of game it is," and not these "statistical elements." As for the damage formula comment, there is nothing we as gamers can do about it, as it is a part of the mechanics. We can however, ban moves.

This means that any single match does not prove that one player is better than another, but that is just a fact of pokemon. Even without statistical elements, this exists because of team match ups, and those alone are a reason why single elimination tournaments are not workable.

Well, ok, I agree I guess.

I don't think Double Team should be banned, and it's even sketchy to talk about it centralising the game. Let's suppose we unbanned Double Team and now one pokemon is totally broken. Do we ban Double Team or that pokemon? It would probably be simpler to ban the pokemon, but that remains to be seen. It's quite possible that it won't cause any centralisation in the first place; this can in fact be measured.

I sincerely hope people aren't actually talking about its centralization potential, because there is no way to determine right now if it does. People like jrrrrrrr and I are saying that we wish to reduce the "managing probability" factor of the game, and introducing Evasion would simply increase that factor.

As for player reception, certainly most players are opposed to Double Team. But so what? This could change after the new rules set in. Considering player opinion as the deciding factor here just locks us into possibly bad rules based on conservatism. The main goal should to make the rules be as simple as possible such that the game is sufficiently decentralised.

"But so what?" and "This could change after the new rules set in." are both very interesting statements to make, but I digress. "The main goal should to make the rules be as simple as possible such that the game is sufficiently decentralised" That is the statement that is most controversial to me.

I was at one point an ardent proponent of the decentralization movement and an ardent proponent of testing Evasion, yet I can't really say that anymore. Who cares about the simplification of rules? As long as I can play a game that reduces the need to manage probability, I am happy, as are most of the other individuals who I know both play the game and are actually good at it.

 

[eric the espeon]

The evasion BPers could be annoying, the worst IMO would be the:

Ninjask@Leftovers
Double Team
Substitute
Baton Pass
Sword Dance

set, with a DT it could sub repeatedly (5 trys, so... 76% that at lest one will miss if my math is right ) till it gets a free turn for SD, but the thing is, it needs to have a turn to set DT up and any skilled opponent would not give it that they would jut attack it directly on the turn you try to set up and ether KO or do so much damage that the chance off missing becomes low.

DT on sweepers is a bad idea as has been explained very well by other people.

DT on mixed walls/tanks would probably be the most annoying, however as dragontamer has shown it is worse on average than cosmic power or stockpile, it is more widely available though. DT+Stat up+recovery leavs only one slot for an attack (any attack you pick will be easy to wall by something) so the best option would be DT+recovery+ 2 Attack that are resisted by few Pokemon, walls do not have the power to sweep without boosts.


Now lets test this, see if it is broken then we can deicide if we want to continue the ban for the sake of reducing luck

 

[Jumpman16]

Skill and statistical elements are not opposing factors. Lots of people talk about minimising luck, but a large amount of the skill in pokemon comes from manipulating probability in your favour: skill can come from the statistical elements. A lot of games work like this (imagine talk of trying to minimise luck in Poker!).

Just so you and everyone else are aware, many top pros—most notably Card Player Magazine's 2004 Player Of The Year and the World Poker Tour's top money winner of all time Daniel Negreanu—say that: "Poker is 99% luck in the short term and 99% skill in the long run." Having played many hours of live and online poker and won over $1,000 playing off and on for a little over two years, I have had enough experience to understand why this is "99% true" (lol), and why poker isn't "gambling", per sé.

I think this is a phenomenon that we all need to remember when talking about trying to minimize the luck in a game. If we really want to minimize luck in pokemon, we should learn to place less value in numbers like 6.25% (CH) and 10% (Brightpowder) and the outcome of one single battle, and remember that it is indeed a long-term collection of battles that can begin to prove much of anything about luck vs. skill. The most compelling reason I don't play tournaments or the Shoddy ladder is that I know I can't/won't devote the time necessary to log the hundreds and hundreds of battles necessary to prove anything about how good I actually am.

This isn't to say that DT/BP/TB/Sub or Roost Zapdos wouldn't prove to win 95%+ of the competent player's battles, but it gives us the perspective we need to considered the issue of luck in pokemon in the first place. People who "quit pokemon" at Garchomp's Sand Veil activating once and costing them a battle, though, seem to forget this truism or not know of it altogether.

 

[Pagz]

Ninjask@Leftovers
Double Team
Substitute
Baton Pass
Sword Dance

And have no attacks at all? I think this will be the main problem with evasion moves to the point where most people wouldn't use them even if they were allowed. So many pokemon already have 5 moveslot syndrome that they couldn't possibly afford to have 3 + DT without some major drawbacks.

People might get all giddy about it if it was unbanned at first, but in the end it will just become another gimmick team idea.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Thinking about BrightPowder Garchomp with Double Team makes me cringe a little. Assuming Sandstorm, if that Chomp DTs as I switch to my Chomp counter, then my Ice Beam/Ice Shard is suddenly only 54% accurate. I can't say that I love those odds, even if Chomp needs another turn to Dance on me. @_@

 

[eric the espeon]

Thinking about BrightPowder Garchomp with Double Team makes me cringe a little. Assuming Sandstorm, if that Chomp DTs as I switch to my Chomp counter, then my Ice Beam/Ice Shard is suddenly only 54% accurate. I can't say that I love those odds, even if Chomp needs another turn to Dance on me. @_@

1 attack Garchomp? sub+SD+DT and only one attack?

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

1 attack Garchomp? sub+SD+DT and only one attack?

Hell no. DT in place of Sub.
Double Team
Swords Dance
Dragon Claw/Outrage
Earthquake

The odds would still be in my favor considering it could take at least two turns after DT for Chomp to knock out something, but that'd be annoying as hell to face.