"Uncompetitive" and "Overcentralization": What do they really mean?

[Firestorm]

Don't get me wrong, it's just my opinion. While I can't firmly say 100% of the Smogon user base would up and quit, what I am trying to imply is that significantly less people would play on the ladder and in tournaments if that were the accepted standard, to a point where it would be very obvious.

Agree to disagree.

This is not an opinion. You are wrong. We had Double Team and Minimize enabled for at least a month. Most people didn't even notice because hardly anyone used it. Mostly because they wanted to win. We did not see significantly less people playing. We've had Bright Powder enabled until this generation.

 

[Woodchuck]

"Competitive" isn't a term coined by Smogoners. It's a word with an actual definition that has nothing to do with luck vs. skill but rather how dedicated players are to winning. Just because I can get a whole bunch of people together who would use the word "red" to describe the color blue doesn't mean it's okay to do that.

It's a wrong word choice. It is possible for a competition involving heavy elements of luck to be very competitive. Therefore, leaving something like Evasion in the game would not itself make the game uncompetitive.

I said it was coined in this context; this use of the word "uncompetitive" was coined by Smogoners. If you don't like the word "uncompetitive" then come up with a different word.
I do agree that the word "uncompetitive" is a confusing word choice. However, what other word would you use to describe "an element that discourages or obscures the purpose of the game: to pit one's skill against another's"?
In fact, I think that a valid definition of "competitive" when taken in the context of competitive pokemon is "Encouraging or facilitating the pitting of one's skill in the game against another's." Anything that increases outside influence -- and placing less of an emphasis on skill -- would be "uncompetitive" by this definition.

 

[PokéMontage]

^It's stupid to completely ignore the fact that a game involving heavy elements of luck can certainly be competitive. Competitive/uncompetitive don't need multiple definitions that contradict each other.

Double Team isn't an uncompetitive move. It's a move that raises the impact of luck beyond what some people seem to find desirable (or theorymon would be undesirable). Just say that instead.

 

[Woodchuck]

^It's stupid to completely ignore the fact that a game involving heavy elements of luck can certainly be competitive. Competitive/uncompetitive don't need multiple definitions.

Double Team isn't an uncompetitive move. It's a move that raises the impact of luck beyond what many people seem to find desirable. Just say that instead.

I didn't say anything about Double Team. I didn't even mention luck.
And, seeing as the entire point of this thread was to define for the community "uncompetitive" and "overcentralization" (as, obviously, the dictionary definition wasn't enough) we do indeed need to establish definitions. Defining "competitive" as "having competition" is in no way helpful. (And I'm not saying you did that, but I'm not certain as to what definition of "competitive" you're using here.)

 

[PokéMontage]

I already did. The more dedicated participants are to winning, the more competitive the game is. The less dedicated participants are to winning, the more uncompetitive the game is.

 

[jas61292]

In fact, I think that a valid definition of "competitive" when taken in the context of competitive pokemon is "Encouraging or facilitating the pitting of one's skill in the game against another's." Anything that increases outside influence -- and placing less of an emphasis on skill -- would be "uncompetitive" by this definition.

We don't need a definition "when taken in the context of competitive Pokemon." If Pokemon is indeed competitive, then it must fall under the general definition of competitive. Competitive has to do with striving to win. That's it. It doesn't matter what way you strive to do it. All that matters it that you try to win.

People forget that it is this very principal is what allows the current tiering system to work. When people strive to win, they use the best Pokemon and strategies. It is because of this that having usage stats can work. If Pokemon was not competitive under this general definition then people would use all sorts of Pokemon equally, and stats would mean absolutely nothing.

So, we don't need to come up with a Pokemon specific definition, because the actual definition is applicable to anything that is truly competitive.

 

[Woodchuck]

Okay. In that case, "uncompetitive" is a stupid term that should not be used anymore. Instead, we should just ban things because we don't like them. (Example: Evasion.)
(Btw, since the Internet often causes tone to be distorted. This is not sarcastic. At least, mostly not.)
Because, really, uncompetitive has just been tossed around as sort of a catch-all euphemism for "ban this because I don't like it."

 

[FrostFire]

^^ You just said it, really. The entire reason why people are confused over these terms, and why we have this thread in the first place, is that people aren't using them to mean what they should mean. Furthermore, creating a pokemon-specific definition would only confuse the issue; it would be like (as someone else said) deciding to call red blue. It just doesn't make sense.
So, yes, you're right. we shouldn't really be using the term 'uncompetitive' at all; or at least, it should not be used as it is currently (which, like you said, is as a go-to word for people wanting to ban 'X'). Which brings us back to the point of the thread - the term needs to be defined so that people cannot use it ambiguously; and, I believe the definition jas61292 posted is the best one:

"Of, pertaining to, or characterized by the action of attempting to win"

Yeah, a bit formal, but it's basically a nice summary of what 'competitive' means.

 

[Yoshiken]

However, what other word would you use to describe "an element that discourages or obscures the purpose of the game: to pit one's skill against another's"?

Luck-based. A luck-based element is something like evasion, and is something that a lot of people (seemingly) want to remove.

Those examples are competitive because the prize is freaking crazy. There isn't nearly that level of money at stake when you play PO, so, while valid, is ignoring what I was trying to say earlier:

The context of the game you are playing is important. In the case of pokemon, that means that excessive luck (maybe other factors we haven't discussed yet, but I doubt it) stops people from playing.

The thing is, it doesn't matter what the prize at stake is; a competition is a competition as long as there are people competing to win.
Note that this also goes against the argument earlier that "nobody would play if evasion were allowed." It's already been said that quite a few would play, and that in and of itself proves that it remains competitive - there would still be people competing and aiming to win. It is as simple as that.

I think the entire point of this thread is to get people to use terms like "skill-based" and "luck-based" instead of where some people have been using competitive and uncompetitive, seeing as those aren't accurate terms. Seem fair to people? ;o

 

[internet]

there should be a sticky that gives an "official" meaning for the words in the competitive pokemon terminology.

personally, i would say that overcentralization should mean that a pokemon that is difficult to defeat without specific preparations, gets used a lot, and causes a significant boost in usage for everything that beats it or works well with it.

uncompetitive should simply refer to things like in-game pokemon.

 

[Expeditious]

Exactly, luck has nothing to do with it. Skill takes luck into account, but it does not always try to minimize it. In fact, sometimes it would try to maximize it, use it to their advantage.

In Pokemon, for instance, if skill really was minimizing luck, why are moves like Focus Blast, Stone Edge, and most importantly, Fire Blast so commonly used by skilled players? All of them have great chances of failing, and especially in the case of Fire Blast, there are reliable alternatives. Why are they used?

Because skill is not minimizing luck. Its analyzing the odds and deciding on the best course of action. Regardless of how much luck is involved.

Focus Blast is used because there is no equivalent alternative. Stone Edge and Fire Blast are used when the raw power is required, and in Stone Edge's case to avoid flinch hax. Otherwise, it would not be done, which saves people from having to swear at Focus Miss.

Since Overcentralization has been defined rather comprehensively by Expeditious, maybe we should go back towards the argument of whether or not desire to win = competitiveness? In all honesty though, I agree with that. After all, competitive is defined as:

Of, relating to, or characterized by competition.

Based on this definition, wouldn't something that is uncompetitive, within the context of pokemon, cause people to stop wanting to play? Pokémontage, I believe that this is was Expeditious was getting at. People are less inclined to play a game that is more luck based. Therefore, excessive luck (in pokemon) is detrimental to competition. Here's where we hit the road block that is "subjectivity" though. How much luck is too much luck? I believe that, in order to define the word uncompetitive, we have to define that line, since there isn't really anything besides luck that we can deem as uncompetitive, whatever it means.

Though it seems that my conversation with PokeMontage and others advocating a pro luck mentality is going nowhere except in circles, it has helped me to come up with a more satisfactory definition for uncompetitive. And since everyone seems to regard my definition of overcentralization as solid, here goes:

First ask yourself - if you replaced one or more players within a given contest with an appropriately calibrated random number generator, would it make a difference?

If the answer to this question is no, then it is uncompetitive. This rules out such things as rock paper scissors tournaments, in which you could replace the contest with a series of coin flips, or even draw a name from a hat to determine a winner and there would be no loss of meaning.

If the answer to this question is yes, you move on to the next part.

Second, determine how the best possible player would play the game, and then determine how the worst possible player would play the game. Analyze the degree of difference between them. The further the best player pulls ahead of the worst, the more depth the game has, and the more competitive it is. The reverse is also true.

Pokemon meets this definition easily, as any of the big names here would absolutely destroy some guy with his in game team. Even if some guy got an exact copy of his opponent's team, he would still lose easily, ruling out such possibilities as having a bad team.

Various other games that are played competitively also meet this definition - Smash has advanced techniques that would likely result in a flawless victory on a terrible player, and so forth.

The only problem with this definition is that it can also apply to things that are clearly not competitive, such as games in which you play with people instead of against them, or games that are single player only. But that is easily fixed, giving us a complete definition.

First ask yourself - if you replaced one or more players within a given contest with an appropriately calibrated random number generator, would it make a difference?

Assuming that the answer to the first question is yes, determine how the best possible player would play the game, and then determine how the worst possible player would play the game. Analyze the degree of difference between them. The further the best player pulls ahead of the worst, the more depth the game has, and the more competitive it is. The reverse is also true. However this only applies to games that two or more people play against each other.

Given this, games are competitive when player ability matters a great deal, and are not competitive when player ability matters little, or even player presence does not matter.

 

[Yoshiken]

Except player ability does not need to be relevant for something to be competitive. What you have just described is something being skill-focused. That has little/nothing to do with being uncompetitive.

Competitive and skill-focused are two very different things:
Competitive: Aiming to win; containing the necessary techniques in order to achieve.
Skill-based: Requiring reliable techniques with as little luck as possible.

In a similar vein:
Uncompetitive: Not seeking to win/achieve; not using the optimal strategy.
Luck-based: Relying on techniques that are inconsistent or unreliable.

Note that neither skill/luck-based have any impact on whether the technique leads to a win or not - that is the big difference between skill/luck and competitive/uncompetitive.

 

[Miscellaneous]

there should be a sticky that gives an "official" meaning for the words in the competitive pokemon terminology.

personally, i would say that overcentralization should mean that a pokemon that is difficult to defeat without specific preparations, gets used a lot, and causes a significant boost in usage for everything that beats it or works well with it.

uncompetitive should simply refer to things like in-game pokemon.

Your definition falls short because it's not specific to centralization. Although looking at the effects is good, it doesn't quite work. There are so many strategies that are difficult to be without preparation. Being hard-to-deal with isn't specific to something that is over-centralized. "Everything that beats it" is not sufficient because a metagame accounts for everything in it, and because X affects Y, it does not mean that Y is only affected by X. There is also no clear "beats it"; leftovers Heatran locked into flamethrower is beaten by choice scarf'ed Garchomp w/ EQ. But if Garchomp does not have a speed boost and heatran has hp ice and a choice scarf then garchomp will be beaten, etc. A lot of things work well against a lot of things and often there is more than one way to stop almost everything.

To be fair, overcentralization is not easy to define, unless you just take the simple "usage above X%" where X is an arbitrarily high number that is said to be over-centralized.

Also, the necessity for a proper definition is axiomatic if the term better describes the problem, and the problem is disputed. Conversely it can be said the word is arbitrary without a consistent meaning. But it doesn't matter because essentially, a universal meaning is not required as long as the argument or point being made is dialectic and does relate to "uncompetitive" or "over-centralised". i.e. as long as it makes sense it is a vaild point, but just utilising one word like "uncompetitive" does not immediately mean anything should be banned without sufficient reasoning. That also applies to anyone who does want a clarification of these terms, it's never enough to say "evasion is uncompetitive". The expostulation is more important. Furthermore, defining anything is futile because whatever action is taken is purely subjective. We ban Darkrai because we feel its imbalanced, we ban evasion because we feel it makes for a better game. Although from a rational reasoning perspective it seems almost immoral to ban because we feel like it, it ultimately yields better results. People already have an opinion on a pokemon before they start doing damage calculations to show it's power or frailness.

Whilst it's true that centralization stems from efficiency, and uncompetitive-ness stems from the abundance of luck, our interpretation of the effects of these words is their true meaning. i.e. Most users do not think "double team is uncompetitive as it is based on luck and luck is involved in how double team functions, therefore double team is uncompetitive". Most users think "double team is annoying and is luck-based, therefore it is uncompetitive". So the effect of double team is the entire point of the argument, and that's great so long as people say more than "double team is uncompetitive". So ultimately although in purely objective and un-biased logic, the meaning of the words seems important (in truth, it is), in practicality no true meaning is needed. Unless these terms become requirements of banning or w/e, in which case the need for a definition is axiomatic. But currently, I would say it is not.

Edit: also, the word uncompetitive is redundant. The definition is indeed "not seeking to win". I believe the accepted definition is more based around skill; uncompetitive-ness decreases "skill", in which case it's a pseudo-idiom. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used or should be redefined, it just cements the point about expostulation.

 

[anubite]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. It's not to discuss the current OU problems? It's not to discuss Blaziken? Then what's the point?

OU in GenIV was heavily centralized. Go watch any tournament final and you'll see the same 6-10 same pokemon, usually revolving around:

Latias
Scizor
Heatran
Jirachi
Salamence
Blissey

And a few scant others. Occasionally you'd see a wildcard, but mirror battles were so common in GenIV that I stopped watching tournaments. OU battles in GenV are currently no different - in fact, I'm still seeing most of the same tricks. Scizor, Heatran, Jirachi, Blissey, etc.

I think the pokemon devs forgot one crucial addition this gen - a way outside of air lock / cloud nine to suspend weather. I think it's a little silly that defeating weather-based teams requires having at least two weather moves yourself. They could have made Defog actually useful by making it the rapid spin of GenV. But I guess they didn't think weather would be quite as powerful as it is? Or maybe they aren't as aware of the "competitive" community as I thought.

In any case, I've always felt that OU revolves too much around psuedo-legendaries and the occasional broken pokemon (like Ferrothorn lol). Moving some pokemon to Uber, or at least some kind of limbo, borderline uber tier, is perfectly fine if it enhances the variety of strategies available to OU. It's boring to have 10 viable picks. Period. This is a game after all, so all choices should be made for the sake of variety.

And how should we determine whether a pokemon deserves to be promoted from OU? Well, only after it is clear there are only a few counters for said pokemon and that it is truly detrimental to OU to have that pokemon persist in it. It's also not like any banishment is permanent, we can always allow them back in.

But seriously, how is Gengar still OU? Crobat? Hippowndon? lol they're UU material now, OU is so crazy now

 

[jas61292]

Focus Blast is used because there is no equivalent alternative. Stone Edge and Fire Blast are used when the raw power is required, and in Stone Edge's case to avoid flinch hax. Otherwise, it would not be done, which saves people from having to swear at Focus Miss.

Exactly. There are reliable alternatives, but skilled players have analyzed that the risk they provide is necessary in order to win a larger percentage of time. That is not minimizing luck. If skill was what you are suggesting, then getting certain KOs would not matter. After all, if its all about minimizing luck, why would I use anything but 100% accurate attacks?

First ask yourself - if you replaced one or more players within a given contest with an appropriately calibrated random number generator, would it make a difference?

Assuming that the answer to the first question is yes, determine how the best possible player would play the game, and then determine how the worst possible player would play the game. Analyze the degree of difference between them. The further the best player pulls ahead of the worst, the more depth the game has, and the more competitive it is. The reverse is also true. However this only applies to games that two or more people play against each other.

Given this, games are competitive when player ability matters a great deal, and are not competitive when player ability matters little, or even player presence does not matter.

Here's the thing. This is just not true. I think you should read the article "Playing to Win" by Sirlin. It was referenced in "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame" as the best source on the internet on this stuff. It might not all apply to Pokemon, but it still should give you a good idea what competition really is. Here's a link: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

But as far as your specific points: First, replacing something with a RNG does not make it uncompetitive. I could take Pokemon, make an RNG and have it play for me. It would probably lose, but it would still be an RNG. I guess that means Pokemon can't be competitive. Looks like we have all been wasting our time.

If that were true.

But, fortunately it is not. Competition is about the desire to win. When you play games against random people online, can it be competitive? YES.

But how do you know your opponent isn't just an RNG? You don't.
That's because it doesn't matter to competition. As long as your goal is to win, who you are playing is not important.

To the second part: once again, it is not true at all. The measure of skill is not how much you beat others by, but how often. Few games will have the better player win every time. However, if a game requires skill then the better player will win more often. Sometimes they will barely win. Sometimes they will lose by a lot. but in the long run, the more skilled player will have the better record. "The further the best player pulls ahead of the worst" only means that a game has a steep learning curve. Not that it requires more skill.

And as for the third part. Since parts one and two are just not true, the third part cannot be either.

 

[alexwolf]

I talked about this in the suspect thread, but I do not think that Evasion should be banned for luck based reasons, however, I do not oppose the current ban, because i believe without it evasion moves would be over-centralizing. If people keep using double team, other people will start using Aura Sphere, Sacred Sword, Magical Leaf etc. It would be a over-centralized metagame, and not fun. But I think the ban should come from that centralization, not from that reliance on luck.

again sry for being late...
jas,for people to keep using double team it should be a very prevailing strategy,that would allow you to easily win most of the macthes!as i have told you before i don't think that double team would overcentralize the metagame and i also gave you solid proof(i mentioned a lot of examples with which you didn't disagree).double teaming is not an overpowered strategy.it wasn't banned because it would overcetralize the metagame...
it was banned for making the metagame too luck based!

Exactly. There are reliable alternatives, but skilled players have analyzed that the risk the provide is necessary in order to win a larger percentage of time. That is not minimizing luck. If skill was what you are suggesting, then getting certain KOs would not matter. After all, if its all about minimizing luck, why would I use anything but 100% accurate attacks?




Here's the thing. This is just not true. I think you should read the article "Playing to Win" by Sirlin. It was referenced in "Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame" as the best source on the internet on this stuff. It might not all apply to Pokemon, but it still should give you a good idea what competition really is. Here's a link: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

But as far as your specific points: First, replacing something with a RNG does not make it uncompetitive. I could take Pokemon, make an RNG and have it play for me. It would probably lose, but it would still be an RNG. I guess that means Pokemon can't be competitive. Looks like we have all been wasting our time.

If that were true.

But, fortunately it is not. Competition is about the desire to win. When you play games against random people online, can it be competitive? YES.

But how do you know your opponent isn't just an RNG? You don't.
That's because it doesn't matter to competition. As long as your goal is to win, who you are playing is not important.

To the second part: once again, it is not true at all. The measure of skill is not how much you beat others by, but how often. Few games will have the better player win every time. However, if a game requires skill then the better player will win more often. Sometimes they will barely win. Sometimes they will lose by a lot. but in the long run, the more skilled player will have the better record. "The further the best player pulls ahead of the worst" only means that a game has a steep learning curve. Not that it requires more skill.

And as for the third part. Since parts one and two are just not true, the third part cannot be either.

as to your point if competitive is something you play to win or somethng you play with skill i have to tell you this:clearly pokemon is a game in which we play to win!but how?i think that every player plays to win with skill!that's the nice part.when you play you test your own skills against your opponent!not your luck.we enjoy winning with skill.i think that this is true for almost everyone here!
would you enjoy a game that was won by a crit the same as you would enjoy a game won without the crit?i don't think so...
the basic reason we play this game is for fun!fun here means playing with skill and getting awarded for your skill and strategy!winning with skill!not winning with luck.noone comes to play pokemon because he likes ctriting the opponents or making him miss with sand veil.they come to play this game because they think that its strategy and skill demant is enjoying and thrilling!
and things like double team,sand veil and brighpowder all take the game away from this direction...playing and enjoying to win with skill!

 

[jas61292]

think that every player plays to win with skill!that's the nice part.when you play you test your own skills against your opponent!not your luck.we enjoy winning with skill.i think that this is true for almost everyone here!

Let me quote Sirlin to you:

The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about "skill" and how he has skill whereas other players--very much including the ones who beat him flat out--do not have skill. The confusion here is what "skill" actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is sequence of moves that are unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take "skill," according to the scrub. The "dragon punch" or "uppercut" in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a "skill move." Just last week I played a scrub who was actually quite good. That is, he knew the rules of the game well, he knew the character matchups well, and he knew what to do in most situations. But his web of mental rules kept him from truly playing to win. He cried cheap as I beat him with "no skill moves" while he performed many difficult dragon punches. He cried cheap when I threw him 5 times in a row asking, "is that all you know how to do? throw?" I gave him the best advice he could ever hear. I told him, "Play to win, not to do difficult moves.'" This was a big moment in that scrub's life. He could either write his losses off and continue living in his mental prison, or analyze why he lost, shed his rules, and reach the next level of play.

While that is a different game, the principles still apply. Skill is doing what it takes to win. If Double Team was the best strategy (which I'm not saying it is) skilled players would use it and abuse it. Then the most skilled players would come up with counters for it. And then counters for the counter. That is skill. Skill is not your made up idea of winning the right way. It is just winning. And, while somethings that are determined overpowering may be banned, if you are not trying to abuse the best legal strategies because of some made up rules of what is fairness or skill, then all you are doing is holding yourself back.

 

[Sensei_Bobbilytus]

Let me quote Sirlin to you:

The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about "skill" and how he has skill whereas other players--very much including the ones who beat him flat out--do not have skill. The confusion here is what "skill" actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is sequence of moves that are unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take "skill," according to the scrub. The "dragon punch" or "uppercut" in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a "skill move." Just last week I played a scrub who was actually quite good. That is, he knew the rules of the game well, he knew the character matchups well, and he knew what to do in most situations. But his web of mental rules kept him from truly playing to win. He cried cheap as I beat him with "no skill moves" while he performed many difficult dragon punches. He cried cheap when I threw him 5 times in a row asking, "is that all you know how to do? throw?" I gave him the best advice he could ever hear. I told him, "Play to win, not to do difficult moves.'" This was a big moment in that scrub's life. He could either write his losses off and continue living in his mental prison, or analyze why he lost, shed his rules, and reach the next level of play.

While that is a different game, the principles still apply. Skill is doing what it takes to win. If Double Team was the best strategy (which I'm not saying it is) skilled players would use it and abuse it. Then the most skilled players would come up with counters for it. And then counters for the counter. That is skill. Skill is not your made up idea of winning the right way. It is just winning. And, while somethings that are determined overpowering may be banned, if you are not trying to abuse the best legal strategies because of some made up rules of what is fairness or skill, then all you are doing is holding yourself back.

Honestly, most people I see mentioning Double Team call it a bad move, because even though it makes their attacks unreliable, it's also an unreliable defense. Double-Team all you want; at +6 evasion, a little coin flip still says you're eating a OHKO.

I do agree with the quote being referenced. The "scrub" mentioned are typically people who are, indeed, uncompetative, and playing 'for fun'. They don't enjoy winning, and shouldn't really be in 'hard-core' tournaments. I know I personally find "cheap tactics" such as chain-throwing to be skill-less and crude, because it really doesn't involve skill either though. It involves abusive knowledge of how the game works. In such a case, "competative" players mistake skill for such knowledge on how to play the system in just such a way to ensure victory. And it works. I won't say it doesn't for the life of me. Competative? Yes. Absolutely. Fun? Nah, but that's not what we're discussing here. Skilled? If anyone can pick up the controller, use the same pokemon, run the same deck, and with nothing but a script on how to use it, achieve similar results, than no, not at all.

 

[alexwolf]

Let me quote Sirlin to you:

The scrub has still more crutches. He talks a great deal about "skill" and how he has skill whereas other players--very much including the ones who beat him flat out--do not have skill. The confusion here is what "skill" actually is. In Street Fighter, scrubs often cling to combos as a measure of skill. A combo is sequence of moves that are unblockable if the first move hits. Combos can be very elaborate and very difficult to pull off. But single moves can also take "skill," according to the scrub. The "dragon punch" or "uppercut" in Street Fighter is performed by holding the joystick toward the opponent, then down, then diagonally down and toward as the player presses a punch button. This movement must be completed within a fraction of a second, and though there is leeway, it must be executed fairly accurately. Ask any scrub and they will tell you that a dragon punch is a "skill move." Just last week I played a scrub who was actually quite good. That is, he knew the rules of the game well, he knew the character matchups well, and he knew what to do in most situations. But his web of mental rules kept him from truly playing to win. He cried cheap as I beat him with "no skill moves" while he performed many difficult dragon punches. He cried cheap when I threw him 5 times in a row asking, "is that all you know how to do? throw?" I gave him the best advice he could ever hear. I told him, "Play to win, not to do difficult moves.'" This was a big moment in that scrub's life. He could either write his losses off and continue living in his mental prison, or analyze why he lost, shed his rules, and reach the next level of play.

While that is a different game, the principles still apply. Skill is doing what it takes to win. If Double Team was the best strategy (which I'm not saying it is) skilled players would use it and abuse it. Then the most skilled players would come up with counters for it. And then counters for the counter. That is skill. Skill is not your made up idea of winning the right way. It is just winning. And, while somethings that are determined overpowering may be banned, if you are not trying to abuse the best legal strategies because of some made up rules of what is fairness or skill, then all you are doing is holding yourself back.

you still haven't answered me these questions...
do you enjoy it when the whole battle is decided by a single crit?is this fun to you?
do you enjoy it when it is down to your last pokes and you win simply because he misses against your sand veil poke?again is this fun to you?
do you enjoy double team as a strategy?
and one final question...do you play pokemon only to win?'cause if you are doing this then you are pathetic...
sure wining matters but it's not the greater reason.i want to believe that the main reason that you play this game is for ENTERTAINMENT!!!it's a game after all.we play it for fun.and fun means winning,outpredicting your opponent and making the right decisions not criting your opponent,or spamming double team,or abusing sand veil...
these are my questions!!!pls answer them!
ah and if you mind pls answer also my question that i made you before,as to why moves like double team have been banned.i would like to hear your answer!

 

[jas61292]

Honestly, most people I see mentioning Double Team call it a bad move, because even though it makes their attacks unreliable, it's also an unreliable defense. Double-Team all you want; at +6 evasion, a little coin flip still says you're eating a OHKO.

Yeah, my main problem with double team is that if it is in fact as bad as people say, then why is it banned?

I do agree with the quote being referenced. The "scrub" mentioned are typically people who are, indeed, uncompetative, and playing 'for fun'. They don't enjoy winning, and shouldn't really be in 'hard-core' tournaments. I know I personally find "cheap tactics" such as chain-throwing to be skill-less and crude, because it really doesn't involve skill either though. It involves abusive knowledge of how the game works. In such a case, "competative" players mistake skill for such knowledge on how to play the system in just such a way to ensure victory. And it works. I won't say it doesn't for the life of me. Competative? Yes. Absolutely. Fun? Nah, but that's not what we're discussing here. Skilled? If anyone can pick up the controller, use the same pokemon, run the same deck, and with nothing but a script on how to use it, achieve similar results, than no, not at all.

There is more in that article to respond to what you are saying, but it is not in one place, and as easily quotable as that last one. Though I highly suggest reading it (I linked to it above).

Now there are three things you mention at then end: Competitive, Fun, and Skill.

It seems we both agree on it being competitive, so I won't spend time on that.

Fun is a 100% subjective term. As it says at one point in that article, the competitive players utilizing these techniques are usually having just as much fun as those who call the techniques cheap. If it wasn't fun, why would they play? So calling those moves not fun is just showing that one regards them as unskilled moves.

Skill, though, is what we really need to get at. That is the whole point I was trying to prove with that quote. People think that if something is easy to do or not reliable (luck based) that it doesn't require skill. That is just not true. Skill is knowing how to use the available moves to win. If that means using things viewed as easy, who cares? They are taking advantage of what the game has provided for them in an attempt to win. That's what Skill is. If something really is both so simple and so good, why aren't you using it. It is only once people accept that everything within the rules is fair game that they can start to develop true skill.

you still haven't answered me these questions...

Fine. I will.

do you enjoy it when the whole battle is decided by a single crit?is this fun to you?

It can be annoying, but its part of the game. I am just as elated when I win because of one as I am annoyed when I lose. I just accept them and move on.

do you enjoy it when it is down to your last pokes and you win simply because he misses against your sand veil poke?again is this fun to you?

Same as the last question. It can be annoying, but it can also be exciting. Its just part of the game.

do you enjoy double team as a strategy?

I don't care about it as a strategy. It is currently against Smogon rules. I play by Smogon rules. So I don't use it. I have no real experience with it , so I can't really judge.

and one final question...do you play pokemon only to win?'cause if you are doing this then you are pathetic...

No, I play Pokemon because I am a huge Pokemon fan. Competitive Pokemon isn't even the most important part of Pokemon to me. I play it because I enjoy it. However I enjoy winning, and I enjoy competition. As such, I play to win. And if I am playing against other People who do not play to win, then it is not fun. So yes, playing to win is very important to me, even if it is not the most important thing.

Just want to point out one part of your post:

...and fun means winning...

That is exactly what I have been saying all along. It is only when you strive to win that not only can you have fun, but can you improve, and let the metagame develop.

And if you think fun in Pokemon is:

...not criting your opponent...

or any of those other things, then you need to find yourself a new game. Those are parts of Pokemon and always will be parts of Pokemon. And I, personally, want to play Pokemon, not some skewed version of it.

ah and if you mind pls answer also my question that i made you before,as to why moves like double team have been banned.i would like to hear your answer!

I honestly do not know why they have been. I was not in the competitive community when that decision was first made. However, as I have said, since I want to assume policies are made by rational, logical people, I would hazard a guess that it was because they had become incredibly popular, to the point of over-centralization.

 

[alexwolf]

fun,skill and competition!
let's see these 3 words...why do you start playing a game?most of the times because you want to have fun(except if you play it by obligation or 'cause you want to have profit).now how does each person haves fun?some people have fun by relying on luck and some others have fun relying on their own skills and experience!i think that the kind of fun that everyone is looking for in pokemon is relying on your own skills and experience!
of 'course competition matters greatly 'cause if a game is not comeptitive there isn't so much fun.there are not so strong opponents to beat.there is not much thrill and excitement without strong comeptition...
but is competition the basic reason why we play pokemon?or is it fun?
no matter what some may say i stronly believe that the main reason that we play is to have fun!not to win!of 'course winning brings fun but not always.and winning is not the only thing that brings fun in this game!there are much more things that do...!
say for example that the metagame was very overcentralized and everyone used the same team...in most of the cases the best player would still win but is this what we mainly want?no!because such a game is not fun.it is competitive but not fun!
it doesn't matter if a strategy makes you win or not.what matters is that this strategy will be fun to you.it will satisfy your way of fun.and as i said before i think that most people in here have the same way of fun:competing and winning with skill and experience!not playing to win...

 

[Sensei_Bobbilytus]

Yeah, my main problem with double team is that if it is in fact as bad as people say, then why is it banned?



There is more in that article to respond to what you are saying, but it is not in one place, and as easily quotable as that last one. Though I highly suggest reading it (I linked to it above).

Now there are three things you mention at then end: Competitive, Fun, and Skill.

It seems we both agree on it being competitive, so I won't spend time on that.

Fun is a 100% subjective term. As it says at one point in that article, the competitive players utilizing these techniques are usually having just as much fun as those who call the techniques cheap. If it wasn't fun, why would they play? So calling those moves not fun is just showing that one regards them as unskilled moves.

Skill, though, is what we really need to get at. That is the whole point I was trying to prove with that quote. People think that if something is easy to do or not reliable (luck based) that it doesn't require skill. That is just not true. Skill is knowing how to use the available moves to win. If that means using things viewed as easy, who cares? They are taking advantage of what the game has provided for them in an attempt to win. That's what Skill is. If something really is both so simple and so good, why aren't you using it. It is only once people accept that everything within the rules is fair game that they can start to develop true skill.

I like talking to you, you actually seem not to resort to crappy arguements and fallacious, regurgitated crap you heard some other noob say =)

But yeah. Competative is what it is, and sure Fun is subjective. That was what I was trying to get at with the whole MTG psychological profiles earlier. Most of the hardcore "spike" gamers have fun BY winning, their favorite pokemon ARE the most broken, overpowered death machines they can abuse. But that's just how it is (pathetic, as the above poster mentions, or otherwise; as this too is subjective).

I'm still a little at odds with you about what defines skill. I know I suffer from personal pride and don't like my wins to come from just using the easiest route and most powerful options possible. I really do believe that it is skillless to sweep with garchomp. You're doing what you need to win, sure, but again, if anyone can do it, it's not a skill.
Apply this definition to something that doesn't have a clear-cut 'win or lose' mentality. Guitar skill, for example. It doesn't take skill to play the cheesy chorus riff to Iron Man or Enter Sandman, just basic knowledge. Every woman I know who's picked up an acoustic guitar can play Hay There Delilah, for better or worse. And as long as you offer a brief explaination on how to, anyone can do it. Thusly, it does not require skill.

Greenday and the whole Punk genre showed the world that skill had nothing to do with if you could make it or not in the music industry. They viewed technical skill as 'overly complex' and broke music down to it's basics, things anyone who knows what the D-scale is could do. And I feel that that's what competative pokemon has come down to; skill has no place in the competative scene, it's more about abuse of well-known overpowered stratagies and pokemon that any player can pick up and use to a cirtain level of success.
Sure, skill will determine (sometimes) which mirror-match team will pull more victories, but I would risk assuming that a well-written computer program using a team of the OU standard threats and checks could mimick the performance of any player who thinks himself "skilled" using the same setup and pull consistant victories.

Again, to rephrase an earlier point; it takes no skill to kill someone with a shotgun. You can do that by accident. Skill is killing someone with a yo-yo or boomerang (which were designed to be hunting devices), as it is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE, yet requires an intimate knowledge of the subject matter, a fair level of both practice and theory, and cannot be easily imitated even through careful instruction. It requires skill. The former of the two does not require skill, and (except in extreme circumstances as noted by the example) doesn't require luck either, just a basic level of knowledge, competence, and drive.

 

[alexwolf]

Fine. I will.

It can be annoying, but its part of the game. I am just as elated when I win because of one as I am annoyed when I lose. I just accept them and move on.you still haven't answered...are you more satisfied when you win this way or are you more satisfied when you win without the crit?what is more fun to you?

Same as the last question. It can be annoying, but it can also be exciting. Its just part of the game.same answer as above...

I don't care about it as a strategy. It is currently against Smogon rules. I play by Smogon rules. So I don't use it. I have no real experience with it , so I can't really judge.fine

No, I play Pokemon because I am a huge Pokemon fan. Competitive Pokemon isn't even the most important part of Pokemon to me. I play it because I enjoy it. However I enjoy winning, and I enjoy competition. As such, I play to win. And if I am playing against other People who do not play to win, then it is not fun. So yes, playing to win is very important to me, even if it is not the most important thing.yes you enjoy winning!but is this the only thing that you enjoy?i don't think so...if you play a very intense and interesting battle and you lose wouldn't this be fun?

That is exactly what I have been saying all along. It is only when you strive to win that not only can you have fun, but can you improve, and let the metagame develop.of 'course you strive to win!striving to win and winning is not the same thing...but you have fun by giving your best at trying to win not when you win.this is the important part!the thing that matters most is how you win not to win...!!!

And if you think fun in Pokemon is:

or any of those other things, then you need to find yourself a new game. Those are parts of Pokemon and always will be parts of Pokemon. And I, personally, want to play Pokemon, not some skewed version of it.man according to this logic everything is part of the game.so we just let it be.this is false.we create the game that we want according to our likings(of 'course we have some boundaries or else we would completely modify the game into something else).if sand veil gets banned then competitive battles are going to be a skewed version of pokemon?are you serious?i also want to play pokemon but i also want to improve the game to make it even more fun!

I honestly do not know why they have been. I was not in the competitive community when that decision was first made. However, as I have said, since I want to assume policies are made by rational, logical people, I would hazard a guess that it was because they had become incredibly popular, to the point of over-centralization.if over-centralization was the matter then in this gen these moves would have been retested as everything else did(except from obvious broken things like some ubers).and also why the evasion raising items were banned?you have to start thinking seriously that there is something wrong with evasion and that's why we don't want it...

answers in bold.

Most of the hardcore "spike" gamers have fun BY winning, their favorite pokemon ARE the most broken, overpowered death machines they can abuse.

i would like to correct this phrase.i don't think that even the more hardcore gamers play to win.they play to try to win!there's a big difference!
for example i can assure you that most of the players here would prepare playing an interesting and intense game and lose than play a boring one and win.if what you said above was true then why does this happens?

 

[Sensei_Bobbilytus]

I would venture to agree with this alexwolf fella on a few key points. A lot of people I see running about don't really play to win at all. A good majority play to get in the mix, see where they stand; they play to ultimately find the shortcommings of their teams and what they have problems with. The end result is a team more capable of winning, but not some perfect team that wins each time. How good of a game would competamon be if you were playing 3v3 and your opponent started the match with Dragonite, Salamence, and Garchomp, and they all used Outrage or Dragon Tail? People play to win, but against the competative spirit, I really don't think any player has the desire to be unbeatable. Most simply play to become better players.

 

[alexwolf]

I would venture to agree with this alexwolf fella on a few key points. A lot of people I see running about don't really play to win at all. A good majority play to get in the mix, see where they stand; they play to ultimately find the shortcommings of their teams and what they have problems with. The end result is a team more capable of winning, but not some perfect team that wins each time. How good of a game would competamon be if you were playing 3v3 and your opponent started the match with Dragonite, Salamence, and Garchomp, and they all used Outrage or Dragon Tail? People play to win, but against the competative spirit, I really don't think any player has the desire to be unbeatable. Most simply play to become better players.

maybe you gave the most accurate reason!players play to become better!they play because they have a goal!and this whole situatin is fun!!!