Yeah, but when you miss it twice in a row and get swept by a double dance Groudon because of it, it's BS.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Playing With Luck
- Thread starter Phi
- Start date
Yeah, but when you miss it twice in a row and get swept by a double dance Groudon because of it, it's BS.
Think of Stone Edge and Cross Chop. They miss at the most crucial moments, and get Crits at pointless moments, like against a 3% Gengar. They were crits that would've been really useful against, say, a vappy. It really doesn't help that I basically am bad luck, but this really pisses me off.
Zacchaeus is right.
Pokemon doesn't happen in rows: the only way to look at hax is "in a span of (battle length) Bounce missed six times." The fact that it happened six times period is still pretty horrible but no more statistically likely than six in a row.
I realize you feel more cheated when it's in a row that it misses, as do I. I'm sure there's some psychological effect behind that, or maybe it's something as simple as the fact that you hadn't hit in twelve turns. Either way, hax evens out over a span of time, but you only remember feeling cheated.
@ DPR & Aeromence: Basically what I said above. I bet four out of five times Stone Edge misses, it doesn't make the game. But you remember that one out of five that it does and not the other four, and you get what is called the Stone Edge Accuracy Conundrum*. I'm guilty of this too.
* The theory that states that Stone Edge is the worst move in the game because whenever you need to use it in order to win, it will miss, but Rock Slide would have failed to net the crucial KO.
Pokemon doesn't happen in rows: the only way to look at hax is "in a span of (battle length) Bounce missed six times." The fact that it happened six times period is still pretty horrible but no more statistically likely than six in a row.
I realize you feel more cheated when it's in a row that it misses, as do I. I'm sure there's some psychological effect behind that, or maybe it's something as simple as the fact that you hadn't hit in twelve turns. Either way, hax evens out over a span of time, but you only remember feeling cheated.
@ DPR & Aeromence: Basically what I said above. I bet four out of five times Stone Edge misses, it doesn't make the game. But you remember that one out of five that it does and not the other four, and you get what is called the Stone Edge Accuracy Conundrum*. I'm guilty of this too.
* The theory that states that Stone Edge is the worst move in the game because whenever you need to use it in order to win, it will miss, but Rock Slide would have failed to net the crucial KO.
An experiment:
Get out a (fair) coin, and flip it twenty four times. Record your results. Now, work out the probability that you would get that result - I'll save you the time, it was (about) 0.00000596%, or 1 in 16,777,216. Well, that's ridiculously lucky! You were more likely to win the (British) lottery with a single ticket than to get that outcome! Don't you feel really lucky?
Well, of course not. Some outcome had to occur. The same is true in Pokémon. Looking back at 5 Focus Blast misses in a row, we can feel terribly cheated - it's very unlikely that that would have happened. But then again, it's also pretty unlikely to get a non crit hit that doesn't lower special defence five times in a row. It's pretty unlikely for a hit, hit, sp. def lowering hit, miss, hit chain. It's somewhat of a fallacy to point to these past five turns and claim how unlucky you were - by the same token, every single other outcome was also unlucky.
Get out a (fair) coin, and flip it twenty four times. Record your results. Now, work out the probability that you would get that result - I'll save you the time, it was (about) 0.00000596%, or 1 in 16,777,216. Well, that's ridiculously lucky! You were more likely to win the (British) lottery with a single ticket than to get that outcome! Don't you feel really lucky?
Well, of course not. Some outcome had to occur. The same is true in Pokémon. Looking back at 5 Focus Blast misses in a row, we can feel terribly cheated - it's very unlikely that that would have happened. But then again, it's also pretty unlikely to get a non crit hit that doesn't lower special defence five times in a row. It's pretty unlikely for a hit, hit, sp. def lowering hit, miss, hit chain. It's somewhat of a fallacy to point to these past five turns and claim how unlucky you were - by the same token, every single other outcome was also unlucky.
This is all well and good, I think I just want to reiterate that the important thing isn't just accepting, but learning to work with it. Pokemon, like its real world antecedents, dog-fighting, cock-fighting and boxing, the lack of real world control over your fighter (as Don King and Michael Vick have learned all too many times) means that you constantly have to take into account. This is especially true since Pokemon trainers have access to many tools that cock-fighters would kill for, such as the ability to summon any one of four lethal instincts in your cock through the equivalent of bluetooth and also switch out any of your cocks for any other other of six differently-abled bluetooth cocks so you're not caught fighting a fatty with skinny pete.
The thing is that competitive poker and dog shows (which are actually fronts for awesome dog fights if you know the wrong guy at science diet) involve a lot less ability to actually plan a long term strategy when the long term variable/animal is totally outside of your command. I think it actually is possible to play battles using the right combinations of abilities/moves in OU that would give you a reliable but somewhat inflexible team. But even if Pokemon were a game of pure gambling, there would be a workable strategy to win competitively, even if that strategy is "be the dealer". In Poker, the rest is pure mindgames, and the best poker players are able to suss out based on the bets being made how well they might or might not match up, though the actual match-up you have against the opponent is entirely based on the luck of the draw. In a Pokemon battle, not only do you have your mindgames with the opponent allowing you to hedge chance a little bit, but you also have the competitive dog fighter/showman's ability to breed and train up the actual elements elements in your deck of cards sot that hypothetically you never have a bad hand (in this extended mixed metaphor the rounds of a dogfightshow are roughly equivalent of a hand of poker).
Also, most importantly you're pretty much aware of exactly how luck is going to affect you during any move of the battle, so how do you account for effectively in team building and then actual tactics so that an unlucky fire blast miss doesn't basically neuter your team's ability to effectively kill Ferrothorn. Remember, while Critical Hits make defensive boosting a longterm stupid idea, Stall is conversely traditionally the most effective strategy for netting consistent wins since it trades heavy damage upfront (Stone Edge and Focus Blast are pretty notable for this because they are irreplacable coverage on a lot of the Pokemon that get them and a miss can totally destroy momentum) for consistent damage in the long term, even in the case of stuff like will-o-wisp with 75% accuracy since it afterwards its benefits are consistent.
The thing is that competitive poker and dog shows (which are actually fronts for awesome dog fights if you know the wrong guy at science diet) involve a lot less ability to actually plan a long term strategy when the long term variable/animal is totally outside of your command. I think it actually is possible to play battles using the right combinations of abilities/moves in OU that would give you a reliable but somewhat inflexible team. But even if Pokemon were a game of pure gambling, there would be a workable strategy to win competitively, even if that strategy is "be the dealer". In Poker, the rest is pure mindgames, and the best poker players are able to suss out based on the bets being made how well they might or might not match up, though the actual match-up you have against the opponent is entirely based on the luck of the draw. In a Pokemon battle, not only do you have your mindgames with the opponent allowing you to hedge chance a little bit, but you also have the competitive dog fighter/showman's ability to breed and train up the actual elements elements in your deck of cards sot that hypothetically you never have a bad hand (in this extended mixed metaphor the rounds of a dogfightshow are roughly equivalent of a hand of poker).
Also, most importantly you're pretty much aware of exactly how luck is going to affect you during any move of the battle, so how do you account for effectively in team building and then actual tactics so that an unlucky fire blast miss doesn't basically neuter your team's ability to effectively kill Ferrothorn. Remember, while Critical Hits make defensive boosting a longterm stupid idea, Stall is conversely traditionally the most effective strategy for netting consistent wins since it trades heavy damage upfront (Stone Edge and Focus Blast are pretty notable for this because they are irreplacable coverage on a lot of the Pokemon that get them and a miss can totally destroy momentum) for consistent damage in the long term, even in the case of stuff like will-o-wisp with 75% accuracy since it afterwards its benefits are consistent.
Fire Blast is by far more superior than Flamethrower, since 85% is relatively accurate for a 120 special move with no drawbacks. There's no contest.
Hydro Pump and Surf, you can make an argument of consistency vs power, however. I think you need to be aware of your mon's role. For instance, a ScarfToed is primarily a revenge-killer and a secondarily a Sweeper. When considering its priorities, it would want Hydro Pump to check many more threats (ie Tornadus). A powerful and risky move is more fitting on a hit-and-run mon such as ScarfToed than a Sweeper that is gonna stay active for 5 straight turns to clean up. However, even a Sweeper may resort to Hydro Pump to outmuscle specially bulky mons like Jirachi and Blissey.
Rock Slide and Stone Edge is even more complex imo. Stone Edge is roughly 50% stronger, but Rock Slide is more consistent and has that clutch 30% flinch. On a fast sweeper such as Terrakion and Landorus, Rock Slide and Stone Edge probably win or lose games by the same amount (Rock Slide can lose games due to the loss in power, but it can equally win games with flinch and consistency).
You can prepare for these sorts of risks, as well as things like paralysis, because you subconsciously calculate the risks in your head. The most abominable hax is undoubtedly critcial hits, because they just strike you out of the blue, and you can't really prepare yourself when it happens.
Hydro Pump and Surf, you can make an argument of consistency vs power, however. I think you need to be aware of your mon's role. For instance, a ScarfToed is primarily a revenge-killer and a secondarily a Sweeper. When considering its priorities, it would want Hydro Pump to check many more threats (ie Tornadus). A powerful and risky move is more fitting on a hit-and-run mon such as ScarfToed than a Sweeper that is gonna stay active for 5 straight turns to clean up. However, even a Sweeper may resort to Hydro Pump to outmuscle specially bulky mons like Jirachi and Blissey.
Rock Slide and Stone Edge is even more complex imo. Stone Edge is roughly 50% stronger, but Rock Slide is more consistent and has that clutch 30% flinch. On a fast sweeper such as Terrakion and Landorus, Rock Slide and Stone Edge probably win or lose games by the same amount (Rock Slide can lose games due to the loss in power, but it can equally win games with flinch and consistency).
You can prepare for these sorts of risks, as well as things like paralysis, because you subconsciously calculate the risks in your head. The most abominable hax is undoubtedly critcial hits, because they just strike you out of the blue, and you can't really prepare yourself when it happens.
Fix hax as best as you can by running better accuracy moves. If you get a fire blast miss, that's too bad because you could be running flamethrower. Stall teams that recover repeated attacks are at fault too. After recovering 16 attacks you are bound to be crit. Focus blast and stone edge are a bit different as I'll explain.
I use stone edge on a 1/3 of my team. It's partly my fault for using it, although I don't rely on it, and it's partly the fault of gf for not having a decent physical rock move. It's not my opponents fault if it misses or crits (it's usually either one), so there isn't a point in bitching. Same thing goes for fire blast and the like, but at least you could have used flamethrower. It sucks when you lose a game because of crits but don't get pissed at your opponent as it is probably more your fault then their's. It does taint the viability of laddering but what can you do.
Also, if you are a stall player and get haxed after recover stalling 100+ moves out for toxic and LO damage, I don't want to hear it. You are putting the odds in my favor.
I use stone edge on a 1/3 of my team. It's partly my fault for using it, although I don't rely on it, and it's partly the fault of gf for not having a decent physical rock move. It's not my opponents fault if it misses or crits (it's usually either one), so there isn't a point in bitching. Same thing goes for fire blast and the like, but at least you could have used flamethrower. It sucks when you lose a game because of crits but don't get pissed at your opponent as it is probably more your fault then their's. It does taint the viability of laddering but what can you do.
Also, if you are a stall player and get haxed after recover stalling 100+ moves out for toxic and LO damage, I don't want to hear it. You are putting the odds in my favor.
Yea, Eggbert's right - there is something you can do about critical hits. The only way to minimize critical hits is reducing the number of attacks they throw at you. You can only accomplish this by playing aggressively, not letting them have a chance to just barrage you with assaults. That's one reason why you don't want to be on the defensive, because you're not landing hits while the opponent is whaling at you, inviting critical hits.
While it is just me bitching, one of my major pet peeves are people who don't believe in "hax for hax," which is actually my philosophy to not always ragequit, as the hax gods are (occasionally) good to me. While you guys may disagree, when I think of hax, I really couldn't give about the % chance, its the principle. Say you burn my Terrakion with Scald, effectively making him useless, but I get a crit later in the game with -insert poke here-, which leads to a crucial KO (but not a sweep, if a sweep occurs because of it, then its really not hax for hax). You can't imagine how many times I've heard people say "No its not even Scald had a 30% chance but you only had 6.25%!!!" (usually followed by a ragequit). But all seriousness aside after my rant about that, discuss the principle of hax for hax for my amusement now! Let the flame wars begin!!! 3:)
Oh, and I also think the Stone Edge Accuracy Conundrum when
a) I have two-three pokes left who are easily destroyed because of the Stone Edge miss
b) The miss isn't crucial, but it kinda sucks
Focus Blast is a different story. That move just hates my guts.
Oh, and I also think the Stone Edge Accuracy Conundrum when
a) I have two-three pokes left who are easily destroyed because of the Stone Edge miss
b) The miss isn't crucial, but it kinda sucks
Focus Blast is a different story. That move just hates my guts.