Evasion: Hit or Miss?

[Veedrock]

Evasion is a very controversial move in that it seemingly increases luck and decreases the skill aspect of the game, meaning it takes no "skill" to use it. Competitive environments should have their winner ultimately decided by skill. Nobody wants to play sports if the winner is decided by a coin flip. Needless to say, luck makes things in general less competitive because it allows the lesser player to have a chance at beating the greater player. Pokémon, however, is different from standard competitive standards in that it includes luck, without much of a choice to remove it. To minimize the effect of luck to promote competition, evasion increasing moves have been banned. This has been a questionable action for some time now.

Pokémon is a game of "information (or statistical) management." You choose your moves and their associated properties, well aware of the rewards and consequences that go along with your decision. Example: if you use Thunderbolt for better accuracy, you may fail to OHKO a threat that Thunder may finish off. If Thunder misses then it is still a 2HKO (considering the next attack hits), meaning the trade off for TB will be of no loss; if it doesn't miss however, you reap greater benefits for better taking a bigger risk. You control the numbers that you're willing to play with and go with it; manipulating these numbers in your favor is a large part of skill in Pokémon. Evasion reduces this effect, lowering the probability of a payoff on either end, taking "management" away from you and giving it to the RNG. Is this, a greater precense of luck, something that we want in the metagame?

Evasion is not without its drawbacks though. It takes up one of your limited moveslots, making the Pokémon less versatile and more vulnerable to the counters that cometh forth. It also requires turns to set up, in which case an opponent can either get a safe switch and/or proceed to do as they choose, be it "countering" the evasion, full blown attacking, or setting up to do massive damage. It also doesn't pay for itself in terms of usage unless a certain number of misses ensue (for example, one turn of set up requires two turns of successful evading to be rewarding). Are these risks that are really beneficial and worth actually using? Or should they be passed up for more reliable and effective strategies known to work? In both cases, why should the strategy banned?

Obi brings up a good point when it comes to testing and this should be considered as well.

For those of you advocating testing, what should we be looking for in these tests? This because it's an important question to ask. If you favor testing, what information could come from testing that would convince you that evasion should be banned? What information would come from testing that would convince you it shouldn't?

As for my views, I'm in the middle. I don't know if it will have a great impact, but the metagame has been working fine without it, so implimentation seems unnecessary.

For further information, you can refer to this topic. It holds a lot of great arguments for both sides of the table, and may very well end up changing your perspective. That's what happened to me. Remember, this topic is for discussion; not simply expressing your support a test or claiming which side you're with. Providing facts helps to support your views a great deal better than "theorymon." Evasion is very difficult to theorymon.

So, how do you feel about the Evasion Clause?

 

[lilyhollow]

I have a problem with the idea that "we're fine without it," because obviously if we're also "fine with it," allowing it in the game would be ideal. I also think that banning Minimize but not Double Team would make little sense under any circumstances, as we would essentially be saying that "we're fine with Evasion itself, just not when it's available to certain Pokemon," in which case I would be calling attention to those certain Pokemon instead of using them as an excuse to ban an otherwise valid move option.

I don't think that Evasion "decreases skill" without also bringing at least some meaningful strategy to the game for us to account for. If that were the case though (or if that "meaningful strategy" were actually harmful [and not just on certain pokemon]), that's just about the only case in which I'd support this (or any) move ban.

 

[Qzahk]

Double Team is a move that does takes little skill to use or play against. When using it, all you have to do is weigh the statistical chance it will reward you with the reward and risk. With most moves, you have to calculate the chance for reward yourself instead of using a percentage. (team-building not in mind) When playing against it, you will likely be using the same moves you would have used without DT in mind, except perhaps a leaning to more accurate ones.

However, there is no reason to ban it unless it is actually useful. How useful a move, that requires little skill to use, needs to be before it needs to be banned is what should be in mind. Being in favor of changing the competitive game from the actual game as little as possible:

Is Double Team actually useful enough to warrant being banned?

 

[Veedrock]

Well Thorns, that's one thing that really needs looked at; does evasion make any certain pokemon(s) too powerful? If this happens, then the concept will be thrown away without question (most likely). Blissey could very well be one of those pokemon.

@Blame: About Minimize, I had a brain lapse while typing and thought double team raised evasion 2 stages, so minimize is in the same boat as it.

 

[lilyhollow]

Yes. Imagine Blissey with a couple of DTs under it's belt. I am against testing it at all.

What is Blissey going to do that's actually useful with Double Team? Really, give a moveset and a strategy or something, because I'm not seeing it when there are plenty of things that can set up on and/or plainly beat Blissey if it actually plans on staying in all day to take advantage of the Double Team boosts.

And if it Blissey did become broken with Double Team, wouldn't that be a problem with Blissey instead of Double Team (assuming that we otherwise deemed Double Team "competitive")?

 

[Caelum]

Blissey could easily make use of Double Team, although it wouldn't be my choice, something along the lines of Double Team / Toxic / Protect / Softboiled. Double Team could be an incredibly useful "stalling" move on defensively bulky Pokemon (preferably on a mixed wall unlike Blissey so it could take the hit). Things I'm thinking of are like Double Team / Toxic Shuckle, Celebi, Dusknoir, Cresselia etc. Just Double Team and Toxic and then Protect and hope they miss along the way.

Granted the strategy is completely foiled by Taunt, by there aren't really that many viable users of the move Taunt anyway. Steels can be generally removed by Magnezone support and Poison-types are few and far between in standard play (aside from Gengar who can be Pursuited).

The reason the strategy is banned and will be banned forever (even if testing does take place understanding the mentality of the community leads me to believe if would never be allowed in standard play) is because this community despises "luck based strategies". While evasion moves may not make a difference in the larger perspective, individual games would be lost based on evasion moves and I assure the community does and always will find this despicable.

 

[Lightsabre]

Shuckle Relaxed/sassy
252HP/ and split the deffensive EVs any way you need to

double team
toxic
rest
sleep talk


I used this in the battle frontier back in emerald. what you do is have a fast taunter to stop OTHER people from taunting, and then you come in and double team up. rest off the damage and toxic to stall. my taunter was TTar so I didn't have to worry about steels and poisons. nowdays, TTar would be the perfect pairing with this guy and you'd definately want relaxed nature. this is one reason why I DON'T want to see double team

 

[Kalyst]

Statistics is merely a popularity contest-according to a statistics teacher at my campus. The whole arena of chance and probability is so seeped in a mathmatical haze that the possibilities are truly limitless. Say that someone were crazy enough to test DT out. Using the exact same moves, the exact same Pokes with no status afflicting moves or abilities etc, would the outcome be the same each and every time? No-not when you factor in the occasional crit hax, which is the omni present bane of the unlucky (myself included...><) but can we restrict crits form happening? No*.

That being said, however, other moves that rely somewhat on statistical luck aren't exactly frowned upon-in fact, they are implemented as an esential part of the strategy i.e. SubProtect Ninjask. (The moves in question are Protect and Detect) Though they have no impact on evasion, the chances of using them twice in a row effectively goes down with each use, thereby relying on luck. However, most people won't bank on it and s a moot point if in question to SubProtect Ninjask. (Yes, I know it is already geared into the move to not be as effective with each successive use, unlike DT, but this was the first thing that came to mind.)

DT useful enough? Not if you count in all the more viable moves a Pokemon can have. It may not be so much a usability question as is it a practical priority question-whether there's enough rational to even run it on anything when some much better opportunities and creativity can be accomplished. That isn't to say that I don't play by Evasion Clause, however. ^_^



*In game, yes, you can through moves such as Lucky Chant and items like Dire Hit (?), but in the fast paced metagame, that's not a viable option.
(and you can't use items from your bag anyways) Lucky Chant only holds for 5 turns, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Veedrock]

Taunt can miss though. That is something to consider. If you taunt and miss, that could net them an extra turn to DT again (or set up as needed before the next attempt).

On that Blissey moveset, I would forego Protect and put on Seismic Toss or Flamethrow to handle steel types that want to go, while ST won't leave you walled by Heatran, who you're supposed to be walling :P

 

[Flashstorm1]

Double Team has always been one of those moves which are theorized to be overcentralizing because of their ability to eliminate the skill factor from a match. However, I find the consequences for running Double Team to be greater than the rewards for using the move.. As previously stated, Double Team extremely lowers the overall potential of a pokemon in the case of a shorter possible moveset, and that already makes Double Team such a horrible move in many cases.

I completely agree with Blame Game's reasoning for actually needing to use the move in the first place. What pokemon actually benefit from it? I would say only sturdy walls such as Suicune and Blissey could use it effectively, but Suicune actually might make good use of it. It would be impossible to take down something like Calm Mind / Surf / Rest / Double Team once Suicune starts setting up, as an additional factor of luck is added to properly countering said set.

Obviously, the question that should be asked is: Does Double Team affect a pokemon's ability to counter a specific threat running the move?

And if it Blissey did become broken with Double Team, wouldn't that be a problem with Blissey instead of Double Team (assuming that we otherwise deemed Double Team "competitive")?

I wouldn't think that Blissey would be brought up in the argument so much as Double Team, because it is the presense of Double Team that affects the metagame, not Blissey.

 

[Setrack]

i'd want to see a double team test. all these arguments we see now about certain strategies being broken are based on just "paper pokemon" and not based on actual gameplay. it would be interesting to see how double team gets used in the standard metagame.

 

[Cosmos]

but Suicune actually might make good use of it. It would be impossible to take down something like Calm Mind / Surf / Rest / Double Team once Suicune starts setting up, as an additional factor of luck is added to properly countering said set.

Vaporeon says hi. But your right, double team would result in many pokemon becoming possibly broken, but as was said, you could dt up 6 times then get critted the next term and suddenly wow what a waste of 6 turns. Obviously thats an extrmeme case, but a fast sweeper, (with a focus sash) with just two double teams, a boosting move and 2 attacking moves could wreck havok.

 

[Nachos]

I recently faced a SubGliscor in the Sand holding Brightpowder was haxed out of a win (the player wasn't even decent). If Double Team was somewhere on that moveset, I would of seriously told the player to fuck off out of frustration.

I think it's bad enough when your move misses or they get a crit or you get paralysis on them which never seems to come into effect. Why piss off the player more with even more luck?

Quite a while ago, I was playing a battle over Wifi against someone using a Double Team/Protect/Toxic/Rest Shuckle. I found myself playing worse and worse as the battle progressed due to me getting Toxiced while they hid behind their Brightpowder and Double Team. I kept getting annoyed and eventually lost due to my concentration level being down. People complained about Wobbufett being cheap and taking the skill out of the game, this is even worse.

Example: if you use Thunderbolt for better accuracy, you may fail to OHKO a threat that Thunder may finish off. If Thunder misses then it is still a 2HKO (considering the next attack hits), meaning the trade off for TB will be of no loss; if it doesn't miss however, you reap greater benefits for better taking a bigger risk.

Not really. If I was using a Scarf Gengar with Thunder and it missed when they switched in Gyarados, they could switch to their CBTar and Pursuit me when I switch. I'd rather go safe and nab a KO and then die then get nothing at all.

 

[lilyhollow]

I wouldn't think that Blissey would be brought up in the argument so much as Double Team, because it is the presense of Double Team that affects the metagame, not Blissey.

How does Blissey not affect the metagame? Yes, we're "introducing" Evasion moves into the game by unbanning them, but consider a situation where Double Team was only broken because of Blissey, and vice versa. If we hadn't erroneously theorybanned all Evasion moves before DP even began, and the metagame evolved to include multiple Pokemon who used Double Team/Minimize in a positive, strategic manner, people would be calling for the head of the first Pokemon capable of abusing it to the point of brokenness. Obviously this is a purely hypothetical scenario and I couldn't see Double Team working out so "cleanly" (even if it's "strategic" it'll look to many like nothing more than "hax") but the fact is that we've never banned a move or item without it either being considered intrinsically broken (the "OHKOs are too luck -based" argument is what generally dominates) or otherwise "clearly at fault" for whatever Pokemon become broken when using it (Soul Dew). I fail to see how we should treat Evasion differently, instead pointing blame at an otherwise viable move just because it happens to be named "Suspect."

 

[TVboyCanti]

What's even funnier is that that Gliscor can use Baton Pass.

Imagine if somebody used something like Gliscor with Sand Veil, DT, Bright Powder, Substitute, Roost and Baton Pass to setup something like Lucario or DDtar? This would probably fall under the Support characteristic of Tangerine's definition of an Uber with a little bit of testing.

Would you be willing to ban Gliscor to make Double Team legal?

 

[Nachos]

No, because Double Team can be used by lots of Pokemon, Gliscor is just a good example of how to use it.

 

[lilyhollow]

Would you be willing to ban Gliscor to make Double Team legal?

That depends on whether Double Team brings anything meaningful to the game; if it were usable as a legitimate, positive, non-broken strategy on other Pokemon, I'd support banning Gliscor.

For example, let's say Nintendo just introduced a move that, while we all agree has a lot of promise in terms of strategically improving Gen 4 pokemon as a whole, manages to entirely break five previously-OU Pokemon. I'd support banning those Pokemon all the way, because really, "what's five pokemon?" It's not like they're irreplaceable (certainly less replaceable than moves as generally unique, though controversial, as Double Team/Minimize), it's not like we don't already have a sizable Pokemon banlist, and it's not like we've ever banned or even tested a move on the basis that "it breaks a couple of Pokemon (but is otherwise pretty cool and useful)."

The actual merits of Double Team would probably be a lot more difficult to determine though, and might not even exist to any significant extent. It makes the question difficult to answer, but if the situation were anything like the one above then the answer is a fairly easy "yes, I would ban Gliscor."

 

[atheistdrifloon]

I don't think there are really any significant merits to unbanning DT/Minimize... it's not something like the Latias test where the upside is gaining a new OU Pokemon, the only result is an increased reliance on hax.

As for banning Pokemon in exchange for Evasion, there are too many Pokemon that learn DT. Anything fairly sturdy could run a DT set and be a ridiculous pain in the ass, especially, as mentioned before, Pokemon with abilities like Sand Veil/Snow Cloak.

 

[Pokemaster 3000]

I believe DT and minimize don't take skill away from the metagame because it takes skill to use it effectively. Also, not allowing evasiveness to raise takes away from the benefits of other moves that are sure to hit.

 

[Setrack]

That depends on whether Double Team brings anything meaningful to the game; if it were usable as a legitimate, positive, non-broken strategy on other Pokemon, I'd support banning Gliscor.

For example, let's say Nintendo just introduced a move that, while we all agree has a lot of promise in terms of strategically improving Gen 4 pokemon as a whole, manages to entirely break five previously-OU Pokemon. I'd support banning those Pokemon all the way, because really, "what's five pokemon?" It's not like they're irreplaceable (certainly less replaceable than moves as generally unique, though controversial, as Double Team/Minimize), it's not like we don't already have a sizable Pokemon banlist, and it's not like we've ever banned or even tested a move on the basis that "it breaks a couple of Pokemon (but is otherwise pretty cool and useful)."

The actual merits of Double Team would probably be a lot more difficult to determine though, and might not even exist to any significant extent. It makes the question difficult to answer, but if the situation were anything like the one above then the answer is a fairly easy "yes, I would ban Gliscor."

the question is: what do we ban first, moves, items, or pokemon?

 

[lilyhollow]

the question is: what do we ban first, moves, items, or pokemon?

I went somewhat in depth into this in the Stealth Rock thread: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1710468&postcount=598

In a nutshell, there's no real precedent for us to ban a move or item that hasn't either been deemed intrinsically broken (a move that KOs all opposing Pokemon instantly is always broken, even when only Sandshrew can use it), or is otherwise clearly "fully to blame" (I think Soul Dew is a good example of this, as it can only actually be activated by Pokemon that are/become broken). Precedent aside, it was a good decision to focus on banning Pokemon in the first place because we have hundreds of them and they're all generally replaceable (anything we lost when we banned Garchomp we either didn't really need, or essentially regained when numerous Pokemon started filling the gaps), certainly moreso than most items and moves.

 

[chuggaaconroy]

I don't think it really needs testing, there aren't really a whole lot of ways you can punish someone for using evasion which is pretty much the same reason why Stealth Rock may be banned soon. The game has enough luck determining it, it doesn't need any more than it does already.

I even used a Double Team Umbreon on a team at one time (of course, I asked my opponents if they were ok with it first) to see if it really was as broken as people said. I now more so see why it's gone since only one use of Double Team raises evasion by quite a bit and something that only takes one turn to set up effectively also is really broken in itself.

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't think it really needs testing, there aren't really a whole lot of ways you can punish someone for using evasion which is pretty much the same reason why Stealth Rock may be banned soon.

Stealth Rock isn't a suspect, nor does it look very likely that it will become one any time soon, nor is being "unpunishable" considered a valid reason (at least by itself) for banning it or Double Team (and on that note I can pretty much just point you to the third paragraph of the OP).

 

[Tucker]

Just the ways it could be used look fun, but the overall aspect of Baton Pass teams with something like Lucario at the end who resist most forms of passive damage also being able to block you every move is a bit iffy, I think the game is fine at the state it is atm.

 

[Veedrock]

Just the ways it could be used look fun, but the overall aspect of Baton Pass teams with something like Lucario at the end who resist most forms of passive damage also being able to block you every move is a bit iffy, I think the game is fine at the state it is atm.

Yes, baton pass teams could become incredibly dangerous if Double Team is thrown into the mix. It may nab a pokemon one more boost or pass completely untouched. Baton Pass is the only reason I'm against Double Team without actual results.

I'd love to see Minimize thrown into the midst. It's pretty rare from what I can see so far and I read more about the whole 2times damage for Stomp thing.
Stomp becomes 130 BP and would be a detterent against anyone using that move

Stomp would never be used though, even if Minimize could be. And Blame is right; there's no reason to unban that move but not Double Team as well.


I'm still in the middle. I can't actually tell if it would do much for the reasons I stated at the start. Would it actually catch on and be abused, or would it be forgotten? And of course, I worry about baton passing it.