One-hit knockout moves: Should they be legal?

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

One of the arguments I'm seeing against testing OHKOs is the fact that they allow your opponent to take out one of your vital Pokémon. This argument is also used by those who want to ban Wobbuffet. "It allows you to take out any one of your opponent's Pokémon, potentially ruining their strategy."

Let's take a step back and look at our metagame. Because we let powerhouses like Garchomp and Metagross run around, the number of viable Pokémon in our metagame is fairly limited. Because these Pokémon are so powerful, we are forced to dedicate many of our team slots to dealing with or 'countering' these Pokémon. As a result, we have a very switch-heavy game with a fairly small number of viable Pokémon. This is not the only way to play competitive Pokémon. It's what most of Smogon is used to, but it's not the only play style. It's just a play style that's more-or-less enforced by our current tier.

I believe that one of the reasons we as a community are so against allowing Wobbuffet is not because it's universally powerful, but because it shits all over this particular style of play. "I can't switch? That's what the metagame is all about! Blarg!". If we had a ruleset that created a highly weather-based metagame where 90% of teams needed sun, rain, or hail in order to be effective, I bet we'd see a significant number of arguments for banning Golduck. "It cancels all weather? That's what the metagame is all about! Blarg!"

OHKOs provoke a similar response. The only way that you can switch in safely is by having a Sturdy Pokémon. So although they don't prevent switching like Wobbuffet does, they penalize a high-switch play style. On top of that, our metagame encourages teams that rely on having all six Pokémon alive (stall teams) and teams that rely on one specific Pokémon to do a cleanup sweep. OHKO moves can spoil both of these team styles.

This may mean that OHKO moves are 'broken' in that they could break our current metagame, but another game would be created in its place. Whether this game would be better or worse is a matter of preference and remains to be seen. I'm all for testing OHKO moves and seeing what kind of game results.

As far as OHKO moves reducing skill, I don't buy that. Like Light says, it's a high-risk, high reward strategy (and I couldn't have made the argument better than he did). A smart player will use OHKO moves under three conditions:

1. To take out a wall
2. When any other course of action would almost certainly result in a loss (when your back is against the wall)
3. When you predict a switch and you don't know much about the opponent's team yet (although other moves like Stealth Rock could easily be used under these circumstances for more reliable benefits)

Those who mindlessly spam OHKO moves are not going to win reliably. I agree 100% with X-Act and Carl's assessments. They should not be allowed in elimination tournaments, but they should at least be tested in ladder and casual play.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Even though letting me use OHKO moves would do amazing things for my shoddy ranking, I really don't think that allowing them would be a good thing. I know for a fact that I'm not the only person who would use Spore/Lock On/Sheer Cold/Spider Web Smeargle on every team.

Doing this essentially negates the concept of battling. Why should we even battle when there is a 30% chance of an OHKO, regardless of whether or not we have a counter to that pokemon?

Speaking of counters, what can actually block OHKO moves? The only pokemon with abilities that can block them are Donphan, Forretress, Magnezone, and Skarmory. All of these pokemon are slow as heck in a speed-driven metagame, three of them lose to other Magnezone and the other one is barely OU to begin with.

This is worth reiterating: stall teams have no way of protecting themselves from OHKO moves.

Who cares if people won't statistically win reliably. The fact of the matter is that they will still win. Also, that argument ignores one key thing: you only need one pokemon to hit one move over the course of the battle for it to have done its job. It's not like someone would spam OHKO moves over and over on all of their pokemon for the whole match. Using a core of 5 defensive pokemon and an OHKOer is perfectly legitimate and they will win much more than 30% of their matches. I agree, someone who mindlessly spams OHKO moves is not going to win much. Luckily for my side of the argument, they dont have to spam the moves for them to break the game.

I also think the "high risk, high reward strategy" argument is misguided because no matter what the reward is in any other situation in pokemon, your opponent still has a reasonable chance to stop you from getting there. Using an OHKO move gives you a much larger reward in comparison to the risk because there is nothing that your opponent can do to prevent this from happening. That "high risk vs high reward" argument would be true if there actually was a risk in using the moves in battle all the time. The only risk involved in OHKO moves comes when its a 1-on-1 situation where your back is against the wall. If I switch my Rest/Sleep Talk/Sheer Cold/Horn Drill Water Absorb Lapras into your Crocune, where is the risk? There is none, yet the rewards I would get from it are astonishingly high, because even if I miss, I either just forced a switch or I get more free turns to attempt an OHKO. I know that example is theorymon, but if there is even one situation where a "no risk, high reward" situation exists, then using the element of risk as an argument is invalid.

I would support OHKO moves if there was a guaranteed risk in using them. For example, if Sheer Cold also had a 30% chance of OHKOing you instead, I would be all for it. More often than not, there is not enough risk involved to demand such high rewards.

Allowing OHKO moves detracts from the competitiveness of the game, and is therefore unhealthy for it. If we are looking to promote skill, unbanning OHKO moves is not the way to go.

 

[Firestorm]

Listed below are all the Pokemon that learn each OHKO move and all the Pokemon that are not affected by them. You might notice that most of the Pokemon who learn Horn Drill, Guillotine, and Sheer Cold are UU. There are 3 BL Pokemon and 2 OU Pokemon who learn those moves.

Fissure has quite a few more OU and BL Pokemon who learn these moves, but Fissure also has the most amount of Pokemon who are unaffected by it. The chances of having at least one Pokemon on your team that isn't affected by Fissure is quite high.

Personally, I think that Risk to Reward factor is still there and that OHKO moves are so overpowered that they should be banned already. They deserve testing in a ladder environment at the very least.

They might even increase usage of some UU Pokemon. And hey, if you see that UU Pokemon, you'll already know its likely carrying a OHKO attack.

Pokemon that learn Fissure [Ground Move]
Bastiodon - UU
Donphan - OU
Dugtrio - OU
Flygon - BL
Gastrodon - UU
Groudon - Uber
Hippowdon - OU
Lapras - UU
Mamoswine - OU
Smeargle - UU
Snorlax - OU
Torkoal - UU
Trapinch - UU
Wailord - UU
Walrein - UU
Whiscash - UU
Wormadam - UU
Wormadam-G - UU

Pokemon that learn Guillotine [Normal Move]
Crawdaunt - UU
Gliscor - OU
Kingler - UU
Pinsir - BL
Smeargle - UU

Pokemon that learn Horn Drill [Normal Move]
Dewgong - UU
Lapras - UU
Nidoking - UU
Rapidash - UU
Rhyperior - BL
Seaking - UU
Smeargle - UU

Pokemon that learn Sheer Cold [Ice Move]
Abomasnow - OU
Articuno - BL
Dewgong - UU
Glalie - UU
Kyogre - Uber
Lapras - UU
Smeargle - UU
Walrein - UU

Pokemon unaffected by Fissure
Due to Flying Typing
Aerodactyl - BL
Altaria - UU
Articuno - BL
Beautifly - UU
Butterfree - UU
Charizard - BL
Chatot - UU
Crobat - BL
Delibird - UU
Dodrio - UU
Dragonite - OU
Drifblim - UU
Farfetch'd - UU
Fearow - UU
Gliscor - OU
Gyarados - OU
Ho-oh - Uber
Honchkrow - BL
Jumpluff - UU
Ledian - UU
Lugia - Uber
Mantine - UU
Masquerain - UU
Moltres - BL
Mothim - UU
Ninjask - OU
Noctowl - UU
Pelipper - UU
Pidgeot - UU
Rayquaza - Uber
Salamence - OU
Scyther - UU
Skarmory - OU
Staraptor - BL
Swellow - UU
Togekiss - OU
Tropius - UU
Vespiquen - UU
Xatu - UU
Yanmega - OU
Zapdos - OU

Due to Levitate Ability
Azelf - OU
Bronzong - OU
Carnivine - UU
Chimecho - UU
Claydol - UU
Cresselia - OU
Flygon - BL
Gengar - OU
Latias - Uber
Latios - Uber
Lunatone - UU
Mesprit - BL
Mismagius - BL
Rotom - UU
Solrock - UU
Unown - UU
Uxie - BL
Weezing - BL

Due to Sturdy Ability
Aggron - UU
Bastiodon - UU
Donphan - OU
Forretress - OU
Golem - UU
Magnezone - OU
Probopass - UU
Shuckle - UU
Skarmory - OU [already under flying]
Steelix - UU
Sudowoodo - UU

Pokemon unaffected by Guillotine and Horn Drill
Due to Ghost Typing
Banette - UU
Drifblim - UU
Dusknoir - OU
Froslass - UU
Gengar - OU
Giratina - Uber
Mismagius - BL
Rotom - UU
Sableye - UU
Shedinja - BL
Spiritomb - BL

Due to Sturdy Ability
Aggron - UU
Bastiodon - UU
Donphan - OU
Forretress - OU
Golem - UU
Magnezone - OU
Probopass - UU
Shuckle - UU
Skarmory - OU
Steelix - UU
Sudowoodo - UU

Pokemon unaffected by Sheer Cold
Due to Sturdy Ability
Aggron - UU
Bastiodon - UU
Donphan - OU
Forretress - OU
Golem - UU
Magnezone - OU
Probopass - UU
Shuckle - UU
Skarmory - OU
Steelix - UU
Sudowoodo - UU

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

Nice list, Firestorm. A couple of things that you might want to note:

1. Shedinja's Wonder Guard effectively blocks all OHKO attacks.
2. Pinsir can Guillotine Sturdy Pokémon with Mold Breaker.

 

[Tangerine]

I'm going to add a few arguments to my post on why OHKO moves should never be tested.

OHKOs undermine the risk management of the other player.

Consider it this way. The point of switching in Pokemon is to avoid an unnecessary risk. OHKO moves undermines this aspect of Pokemon - essentially you need to start carrying pokemon that won't be affected by OHKO moves or it totally screws you over.

So the risk, unless you ALWAYS carry some immunity, is

1) You risk staying in on the 30% chance, and then get nailed by some other move, or
2) You switch out, taking the 30% chance that your normal "counter" or "way to deal with the pokemom" dies.

I'm all for removing moves that put people in a lose/lose situation in a good majority of cases (hence why I'm against wobbuffet) and remove the "information management" part out of the game because I believe in that case it's just too much and relies too much on "luck" rather than "skill"

The goal of a competitive metagame should be to reward skill. I really don't like the idea of OHKO moves because they defeat the purpose of the game. At least Evasion you can deal with and you get free turns out of it - you don't get anything out of this at all.

 

[Firestorm]

I'd say there's still some risk management in it. You either stay in banking on the 70% chance of the opponent missing, or you switch to a Pokemon that has a 100% chance of not getting hit. You could also switch to a Pokemon that you wouldn't mind losing.

Look at the amount of worthwhile Pokemon who actually learn the moves. Keep in mind their speed and/or defenses. I don't really think OHKO attacks will affect the game as drastically as it's being made out.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'd say there's still some risk management in it. You either stay in banking on the 70% chance of the opponent missing, or you switch to a Pokemon that has a 100% chance of not getting hit. You could also switch to a Pokemon that you wouldn't mind losing.

Or better yet we could try to counter the pokemon and not the OHKO move. Banking on the chance of it missing is code for "relying on luck to help you win".

 

[Tangerine]

I'd say there's still some risk management in it. You either stay in banking on the 70% chance of the opponent missing, or you switch to a Pokemon that has a 100% chance of not getting hit. You could also switch to a Pokemon that you wouldn't mind losing.

Look at the amount of worthwhile Pokemon who actually learn the moves. Keep in mind their speed and/or defenses. I don't really think OHKO attacks will affect the game as drastically as it's being made out.

"risk management"? it's like "who would you not mind losing". You're removing the part where the opponent can over come the situation with skill (aka deciding on a good switch) and you have to rely on LUCK?

People get frustrated and pissed off enough over a 20/30% chance, and even then, moves like stone edge/hypnosis/whatever gives you safe switch ins. OHKO moves? "You better have a immunity that can deal with the Pokemon at hand..."

 

[Firestorm]

Deciding on a good switch always requires you to have a Pokemon that can handle the situation. If they aren't a part of the 6, you can't do anything about it. Doesn't the same apply here? If you aren't carrying a Pokemon that can handle one of these moves, you'll have issues.

 

[Tangerine]

Deciding on a good switch always requires you to have a Pokemon that can handle the situation. If they aren't a part of the 6, you can't do anything about it. Doesn't the same apply here? If you aren't carrying a Pokemon that can handle one of these moves, you'll have issues.

Have fun finding something that can switch into Sheer Cold.

Immunities are asking way too much. If resistances worked, I'd be fine with it. But Immunities? only GHOSTs are immune to horn drill and only flying/levitate are immune to fissure.

This is pretty ridiculous :|

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Deciding on a good switch always requires you to have a Pokemon that can handle the situation. If they aren't a part of the 6, you can't do anything about it. Doesn't the same apply here? If you aren't carrying a Pokemon that can handle one of these moves, you'll have issues.

To handle the situation of OHKO moves requires using one of four current OU pokemon.

The posts supporting OHKO moves are all assuming that the opponent is just sitting there and spamming the moves the whole match while your opponent takes his 70% chance to set up. This is an illogical assumption.

Gliscor comes into Heracross for free. Now I get a free chance to OHKO something with Guillotine while it switches out. The example I used earlier, Lapras coming into a Suicune or Vaporeon and getting free Sheer Colds also applies. There are some risky situations in using them, but there are simply more situations where using them involves no risk. We should not be punishing players.

 

[TAY]

I'm agreeing with Jrrrrrrr in that a smart player will be able to abuse these moves with pretty much zero risk. Gliscor is a perfect example, since it typically has an extra moveslot to work with, and even without it would function well; on a poke that typically gets a lot of free turns a 30% chance to OHKO would be ridiculous. Not to mention Smeargle, whose crap attack stats suddenly become irrelevant.

Anyway, as someone who supported banning Wobbuffet in part because it made an entire type of team (stall) almost unplayable, there's no way I could support these being unbanned.

 

[Havak]

I just don't like the idea of "counters" being almost removed from the game.

If I switch my Blissey into what I think is a special sweeping Lapras, and get hit by Waterfall, I'd have to agree that I've made a bad, or hasty, prediction without prior knowledge and it's cost me slightly. My Blissey will be injured more than I expected and I may now need to change my strategy, my opponent has gained a slight advantage due to this.

If I switch my Blissey into what is a special sweeping Lapras and get nailed by Sheer Cold, it just seems cheap and my opponent has gotten rid of my counter due to luck, rather than making a somewhat "creative" moveset.

Though odds are against it, this could begin to happen a lot, losing Pokémon like this all the time, the risk of switching to my counter is also a complete risk on my part, as there's a 30% chance it will be KO'd and I'll need to try and revenge kill instead.

There's just no reason to allow these moves IMO.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Here's what I think:

I consider OHKO moves to be an element of luck. After all, they should miss more often than they hit. You will typically need more luck for them to hit than to miss.

If we allow OHKO moves, then we're essentially promoting an element of luck.

I don't care that they can be countered. I don't care that they can't be used willy-nilly. I don't care whether that some Pokemon may be used less and others may be used more if they are brought back. I don't even care that many people wouldn't even use them.

All that matters to me is that I believe they inherently promote luck over skill, and in my opinion they don't belong in a game of skill.

 

[X-Act]

But Pokemon isn't a game of pure skill...

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

True, but would you rather have MORE luck? I wouldn't.

 

[Tangerine]

But Pokemon isn't a game of pure skill...

But there is skill involved.

Unless of course you can constantly "justify" whatever move you guys can make with "it's a game of statistics, deal with it" and then eventually it'll just end up being a game of roulette :|

I'm not really keen on bringing in a no risk Russian Roulette into the game just on the account "Pokemon isn't pure skill" and thus undermining the competitive nature of the game

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Roulette offers the player almost no decisions whereas Pokemon offers loads (Wobbuffet or not). That comparison is just totally off base; Pokemon is a game of statistics more like poker where the best move isn't the move that necessarily brings payout that turn but when made in a similar circumstance time and time again brings the best payout.

OHKO moves have a big, big counter I haven't seen mentioned yet (sorry if I read over someone posting about it); the move Substitute shuts them down. If a OHKO move hits a sub, the sub breaks and the Pokemon behind it lives. Sub up and set up is a consistently winning strategy against a OHKO user, and I think it would be really interesting to see (assuming OHKOs are even good enough to bother using at all) how the metagame would develop with this play-counterplay situation.

I can agree with everyone who says that Sturdy is a poor counter. It's obviously worth using over garbage traits like Keen Eye if OHKOs are allowed, but otherwise the best answer is definitely just having something with Substitute that can deal with common OHKO users.

 

[Mekkah]

Before anyone else brings it up, we cannot switch in Substitute users into OHKO moves, and Pokemon are cutting their wrists enough with Stealth Rock, Sand Stream and Spikes plenty as it is. I agree they can be used to halt the threat when available, but obviously you will find someone screaming "I don't want to put it on every Pokemon" if this is ever moved to Stark.

Again, I would not mind facing a Seaking with Horn Drill, because it's making Seaking viable and he sucks at everything else, I just would hate to see Lapras or Gliscor spamming it on me. I can see the argument in that it takes little skill to use, but I think the benefit of making above example of Seaking viable cancels that out. So what I'd want would be some arbitrary line between Pokemon that are and are not allowed to use OHKO moves...which has an awful load of issues with it, yes I'm aware, but I wonder what you guys think about it anyway.

 

[Jibaku]

I'm not sure if this has been proposed yet, but in my opinion: One hit KO moves should only connect once

What does this mean? This means that an OHKO move should only hit the opponent once. This includes breaking the Sub with it (i.e Lapras using Sheer Cold on Jolteon's Sub, and Lapras is then no longer allowed to use Sheer Cold AND the rest of the OHKO moves he and his teammates have)

Why am I proposing this? First of all, it would reduce the threat of OHKOs and will discourage players from using them, yet it will give them the freedom to choose whether to have it or not. It will allow a thought process to occur, in which one player decides whether getting one KO from a OHKO move is worth the moveslot loss. This will weaken the OHKO moves, but at the same time allow the pro-OHKO people to use it and stop arguing that they can't. Who knows, it might change the metagame by adding a bit more diversity, but hopefully it won't be too much (and hopefully it won't go bad).

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Before anyone else brings it up, we cannot switch in Substitute users into OHKO moves, and Pokemon are cutting their wrists enough with Stealth Rock, Sand Stream and Spikes plenty as it is. I agree they can be used to halt the threat when available, but obviously you will find someone screaming "I don't want to put it on every Pokemon" if this is ever moved to Stark..

I completely agree. Substitute can block OHKO moves, but using Substitute to "counterplay" the allowance of OHKO moves is unreasonable.

Again, I would not mind facing a Seaking with Horn Drill, because it's making Seaking viable and he sucks at everything else, I just would hate to see Lapras or Gliscor spamming it on me. I can see the argument in that it takes little skill to use, but I think the benefit of making above example of Seaking viable cancels that out. So what I'd want would be some arbitrary line between Pokemon that are and are not allowed to use OHKO moves...which has an awful load of issues with it, yes I'm aware, but I wonder what you guys think about it anyway.

I disagree. If something takes little skill to use, it should not be allowed simply to gain more usage. We are playing to win, we are not playing to make everything equal. There is a difference between balancing individual tiers by changing the pokemon in them and making every tier equivalent by giving worse pokemon a significant competitive advantage. Why does Seaking even need to be viable? Is it really worth Seaking being viable if it is using moves that you already said are unreasonable to counter?

An arbitrary line between pokemon that can and can't use OHKO moves is pointless to me, and it only serves to confuse the player. This is one of those cases were I agree with Colin about having simpler rules being beneficial to the player. Doing this ban would just be too complicated, since we would need to test every pokemon with every OHKO move to see if they are broken or not. Seaking can use Horn Drill, but Rhyperior can't? That doesn't make sense. I would argue that Seaking with Horn Drill is even more frustrating than Rhyperior with Horn Drill because even though if you saw a Seaking, you would know that OHKOs are coming...yet you can't reasonably stop them. If you can't stop them on any pokemon, why should they be allowed sometimes?

And about Jibaku's "OHKO moves only hit once" argument: While that would curb the "wow, thats really gay" factor of OHKO moves, it would still have an absurd impact on the face of the game. Not to mention, as TAY said, things like Gliscor that usually have free moveslots to mess around with anyways would not be impacted by this, they would probably even benefit from it. Starmie isn't going to want to come in and wall it all day long if there is a 30% chance of it dying.

I think people are underestimating how much 30% really is. In 3 out of 10 turns, you are going to lose no matter how well you are playing and no matter how well prepared you are for that pokemon. How many matches go more than 30 turns? The answer is "a shitload of them". That is a lot of opportunities for these to have a huge impact and people are just shrugging it off as "not that bad" for some reason. If you are serious about allowing these moves, I would suggest playing 6-on-6 Russian Roulette online instead of Pokemon.

Roulette offers the player almost no decisions whereas Pokemon offers loads (Wobbuffet or not). That comparison is just totally off base; Pokemon is a game of statistics more like poker where the best move isn't the move that necessarily brings payout that turn but when made in a similar circumstance time and time again brings the best payout.

...
otherwise the best answer is definitely just having something with Substitute that can deal with common OHKO users.

Pokemon does offer loads of decisions, but the decision that we would be forced to make when facing an OHKO user is "which pokemon do I want to lose, since I can't do anything to stop it." The roulette analogy is a good one because it's basically a decision of "if there's a bullet in the chamber, do I want to get shot in the face, in my nuts or in my heart?". You could win the bet and not get shot at all, but if you lose, you really lose. The information management in pokemon does not punish the players for being wrong anywhere near as badly as guessing wrong on an OHKO move would. It is too much reward for not enough risk.

I think that relying on statistics is a surefire way to lose in this case. 30% of the time, I will lose my counter to this pokemon, so should I switch to something else that doesn't counter it because I can't risk losing my original counter?

Also, "just having something with Substitute" does not counter OHKO users because as Mekkah touched upon, you can't switch them in. If they are faster than you, they get two free chances to OHKO. If Substitute is really the best answer to OHKO moves, I don't see how we can possibly justify allowing them.

 

[obi]

Some of the suggestions are simply not Pokemon. How do you propose we "make it only hit once" or "only work if the accuracy is 100%"? It's impossible to do.

I don't see why we should allow OHKOs on the ladder but ban it in tournaments. The argument for tournament bans is that it increases the influence of luck. Why should we then decrease the competitiveness of a ladder? Smogon is about competitive play.

There are quite a few faulty assumptions in this thread. People act as though there is a 30% chance to win and a 70% chance to lose when you use a OHKO move. This is false. You have a 30% chance to do massive damage to the opponent's team and a 70% chance to do nothing. Missing is much less severe than fainting. People drastically overstate the effects of a free turn, especially when it's on your turn of choice, not theirs. You won't be using OHKOs on glass cannon Pokemon; you'll be using them on bulky Pokemon that can afford to miss.

My main argument against OHKOs is not that they are overpowered, however, but that they serve only to increase luck.

In a similar manner, they decrease skill. Consider the following scenario:

"OK, I have Lapras out vs. Suicune. Now, he might switch to Heracross, so maybe I should Sheer Cold. Oh wait no he did that last time he knows I'll be expecting it... Yeah, he's probably going to Bronzong. Yeah, Bronzong. I better use Sheer Cold."

 

[DougJustDoug]

Luck is a huge part of Pokemon. It is unavoidable. Good players are not determined by the results of a single match. They are determined by consistency over time, hence the ladder ranking system. Even when two people play head-to-head, they usually run best-of-three or best-of-five if they really want to determine the better player. Perhaps tournaments should follow the same model.

Someone earlier remarked that we should not seek to "add more luck" to the game through this move. I think the better question is "Should we have removed it in the first place?"

I find it very inconsistent that we are dicking around with insignificant ethical issues like cartridge-consistent IV's and event moves, while at the same time completely eliminating entire sections of the game of pokemon by banning OHKO moves and evasion. There are so many elements of the "real game" dedicated to OHKO's and evasion -- moves, abilities, hold items, entire pokemon concepts. For us to eliminate them, is a bold step away from the game of pokemon and a move to create a new game entirely. Then to step back and quibble over bullshit like cartridge-consistent IV's and "remaining true to the game" -- that's really silly, IMO.

The first question I ask is "How important is it to include ALL elements of the game of Pokemon in the metagame?" The recent decision around IV's leads me to believe we are striving for something consistent with the actual game. If that is the case, then the ban on OHKO's should be seriously scrutinized. Because in one fell swoop, a significant section of game mechanics has been completely wiped off the slate.

If the ban was made to "eliminate luck", then you are kidding yourself. Luck is so inherent in this game, that it's not sensible to talk about it otherwise. Obi's point is a good one. It's not a matter of the luck, it's a question if the risk/reward is too high. Unfortunately, no one really knows if that is true or not. Until it is played and tested, it is pure speculation how OHKO's will affect the game.

Unlike some of you in this thread, I have a LOT of experience with OHKO's in DP because I am what you might call a "serious" Battle Tower player. Jumpman, Carl, and a few others in this thread are also experts in playing the BT in the real game. Anyone familiar with the BT, is quite familiar with facing OHKO's and evaluating the risk reward ratio associated with it. Keep in mind that the Battle Tower has skewed the RNG to actually make it WORSE for the player when dealing hax. I can confidently say that OHKO moves have almost no effect on my playing strategy when I am playing the BT "straight up" (that means I'm not trying to abuse the AI). Does it affect my battle outcome sometimes? Hell yes it does! And trust me, when you've strung up 150+ wins in a row, it is PAINFUL to have the streak ended by a lucky OHKO (or 2 or 3!). But, to try and combat OHKO's specifically, will negatively affect my ability to consistently win otherwise. Therefore, most good BT players do not combat OHKO's specifically, other than a few natural advantages that certain pokes have (Ghosts, Flyers, Levitators, etc.), but are not necessarily chosen for that reason alone.

Obviously, facing human competition is completey different than facing ingame AI. However, I know many people with an opinion on OHKO's have very little strategic experience with playing against any form of OHKO's -- human or AI. Is my opinion on OHKO's any more valid? Not really. It's just theorymon. But it is a little more information to add to the decision curve.

If I had to guess, I don't think OHKO's will affect the metagame significantly either way. I doubt serious players will use them, nor will serious players engineer their teams to defend against OHKO's. However, I can guarantee that many players will bitch and whine every time a noob wins because of a lucky OHKO. But, those players bitch incessantly anyway. As if luck is not already a massive part of the game of Pokemon.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

If the ban was made to "eliminate luck", then you are kidding yourself. Luck is so inherent in this game, that it's not sensible to talk about it otherwise.

Of course you can't "eliminate" luck, but what's wrong with trying to control it?

Obi's point is a good one. It's not a matter of the luck, it's a question if the risk/reward is too high.

Are you saying that's what Obi's argument was? Let's see:

My main argument against OHKOs is not that they are overpowered, however, but that they serve only to increase luck.

In a similar manner, they decrease skill.

His argument was that OHKOs increase luck yet you say that he said it's not a matter of luck... @_@


But hey, we are trying to stay true to the original game, right? Then let's get rid our overcomplicated tier system and all of our stupid clauses, and just play the game that Nintendo and Game Freak intended us to play. How's that sound?

...

(sigh)

The existence of "metagames" indicates that we don't always want to play that game. We're here to play a game that involves and promotes skill. We're here to play competitive Pokemon, and we are widely recognized as the premier competitive battling community.

Look, I have nothing against people that want to play the game as it was intended to be played; go right ahead and play that game if you wish. To ingrain that thinking into competitive battling, though, would require breaking at least NINE years of tradition. Good luck to you!

 

[Havak]

I'm also a quite "serious" Battle Tower player, but in my experience OHKO's aren't that common there either. I'd usually come up against maybe three or four in a regular Battle Tower run of roughly 100 straight. But for the times I do face OHKO's (and Evasion, or both together for that matter) they do usually dent me. This can't be evaluated over a regular match, however, as the Battle Tower is only 3on3, and the opponent rarely switches. Like you said, you can't really compare the in-game AI to a real person.

OHKO's in the hand of a better player could be seen as more dangerous, even though the same chances apply. They won't just go firing off their OHKO's randomly, they'll wait until they have the upper hand in a match, then have the chance to remove a somewhat torublesome Pokémon in one hit. Like in Obi's example above.

I don't want to waffle on forever, but my main point was this. You say we're basically pussyfooting around with IVs when we're still unsure on specific moves and strategies being banned, and it's silly. But then you say you don't think the better players will use OHKO's or plan to be able to defend against them anyway, if that's true, why allow them?

If it's not going to make a difference, being true to the game might not be the best thing to do.

I mean, if we do that. In-Game Ubers would be the Pokémon banned from the Battle Tower, would they not?

That means Garchomp would have to stay, along with Wobbuffet, Lati@s without Soul Dew would be considered at best OU. Celebi, Mew, Phione, Manaphy and Jirachi would become Uber. I'm sure everyone would be well opposed to this.