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

[jas61292]

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

Thanks. I'd like to say the same thing to you. I can certainly appreciate intelligent debate.

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.

So, yes, I agree, it is true that sometimes really powerful strategies may be simple enough that anyone can do them. However I would not be so quick to discard that as lacking skill. While the strategy itself might be great, not everyone will be able to pull it off equally. Skill, in this case, would be the ability to pull it off more successfully than others, or finding a different strategy to defeat those who use this simple one. I think skill would be finding a good strategy, regardless of how easy it is, and mastering it. Them mastering ways to beat it, and ways to stop others from beating it. It doesn't matter how hard or easy the initial strategy was. It only matters how one approaches it.

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.

First of all, I really like that example. I think it is entirely true that these basic guitar abilities don't necessarily require skill. However, I do believe the artist who make songs with these basic things do in fact have skill. It is very similar to what I just described with simple strategies above. Their skill is not in playing these simple riffs, but in utilizing them to create a full song, entertain people, and make money.

The thing is, at least in my opinion, skill is not the using more complicated things, it is taking anything, be it simple or complex, mastering it, and transcending what was previously thought to be possible with it. Whether it is using a simple Pokemon strategy in a never before seen way, or breaking the mold of how music is done, skill is not it what you do, but how you do it.

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.

Once again, I agree with this statement. It is very possible for a computer to defeat a "skilled" player, even consistently. But does that mean that the player is not, in fact, skilled? Is Garry Kasparov, chess grandmaster, unskilled because he lost to Deep Blue? Or, more recently, do Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings lack skill at Jeopardy because they lost to Watson? No, its just that the computers were even more skilled (or, if you want to think of if differently, it was because the computer programmers had such amazing amounts of skill at their jobs). Sometimes certain strategies are just better than others. Skill involves being the best at those strategies. And just because a program can do it better than you does not mean that you lack skill, or that it is a bad strategy.

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.

Is it easier to kill someone with a shotgun than a yo-yo? Yup.
Could someone with little skill at either kill someone with a shotgun? Yes
Could someone with little skill at either kill someone with a yo-yo? probably not
But does that mean more skilled people use yo-yos? not necessarily.

It seems to me like you are trying to liken this to the easiness of using Garchomp you mentioned above. Somthing like: Anyone could win with a classic OU sand team with Garchomp, but it would take skill to win with hail. And I will not refute that. But does that mean you need to use hail to show you are skilled? no.

Instead of thinking of it like how I said above, think of it like this: say we are having a hunting competition where you can use yo-yos and shotguns:

A person with little skill may not be able to kill with a yo-yo.
A person with a lot of skill may be able to kill with a yo-yo.
A person with little skill may be able to kill with a shotgun.
A person with a lot of skill will be able to kill with a shotgun.

But if you are having a competition to see who is the best hunter, the one who will win will most likely be using a shotgun. Does that mean that they are less skilled than someone who used a yo-yo? No, it just means that when you combine their skill with the most efficient strategy, they are the better.

Bringing it back to Pokemon, if hail is more difficult to use than sand, then it may mean that if one person uses each, and they are equally successful, that the hail user is more skilled. However, if the sand user is more successful, it does not mean he is less skilled because he used an easier strategy. It means he knew what would give him the best chance of winning, and became skilled at that.

 

[anubite]

I've never understood the evasion clause anyway. I mean, if it's not in place, just pack a fast/bulky foresight or haze user on your team and you just kill them anyway. Sand Veil is one thing but it's only going to slightly randomly throw the odds in their favor, not like spamming Double Team at all.

 

[Sensei_Bobbilytus]

I... Don't think I can do anything but agree, Jas. I know exactly what you mean; and I know I personally have a preconcieved notion that it's more fun to play with things that are new and obscure; I enjoy seeing a hail team beat a sand team, and I'm not afraid to admit it. And yes, you can become skilled at what I would call 'too easy'. I just think it requires less skill overall, and thusly fosters plateuing early in skill level as opposed to constant growth and development. I know I've been the Devil's Advocate here too; someone once told me that someone who's skilled with a helicopter can do more than a person in an airplane; but, what's to say the person with an airplane, having the advantage of being the standard the helicopter needs to overcome, can't be highly skilled as well?

Pretty much, in pokemon terms, no matter what your IVs or EVs are, sure, the guy with the higher base-stats will still always be stronger in that area. But, and I think this might be going just a little off-topic, it's fairly common for people to assume they have put a lot of EVs into skill, when it's just been the base-stat they're really riding on. If that made any sense to people who aren't me.


As far as the evasion debate goes, I've felt at one time, that "it's part of the game, let people use it; get over it". And I feel like the rule against it is pretty unecessary. I also thought it included things like Accuracy lowering too, but that's beside the point. I don't think it's a good stratagy, no matter what. I do think that there are SOME people who could pull it off, but by nature, not too consistently, and it would offer an unbalanced advantage in favor of the person using it, usually. Clear Smog is a pretty good counter-measure, that is useful in other situations as well. I seriously doubt that the items and abilities that boost evasion slightly should be hated on hardcore. I know my personal stance is, woo, it saves a lot of people from wanting to pound their heads on the wall, so keep it out, but you don't need to be so overboard about it. But I'm also the sort of person who hates hardcore on Stealth Rocks, so I may not count here.

 

[jas61292]

I... Don't think I can do anything but agree, Jas. I know exactly what you mean; and I know I personally have a preconcieved notion that it's more fun to play with things that are new and obscure; I enjoy seeing a hail team beat a sand team, and I'm not afraid to admit it. And yes, you can become skilled at what I would call 'too easy'. I just think it requires less skill overall, and thusly fosters plateuing early in skill level as opposed to constant growth and development. I know I've been the Devil's Advocate here too; someone once told me that someone who's skilled with a helicopter can do more than a person in an airplane; but, what's to say the person with an airplane, having the advantage of being the standard the helicopter needs to overcome, can't be highly skilled as well?

Pretty much, in pokemon terms, no matter what your IVs or EVs are, sure, the guy with the higher base-stats will still always be stronger in that area. But, and I think this might be going just a little off-topic, it's fairly common for people to assume they have put a lot of EVs into skill, when it's just been the base-stat they're really riding on. If that made any sense to people who aren't me.


As far as the evasion debate goes, I've felt at one time, that "it's part of the game, let people use it; get over it". And I feel like the rule against it is pretty unecessary. I also thought it included things like Accuracy lowering too, but that's beside the point. I don't think it's a good stratagy, no matter what. I do think that there are SOME people who could pull it off, but by nature, not too consistently, and it would offer an unbalanced advantage in favor of the person using it, usually. Clear Smog is a pretty good counter-measure, that is useful in other situations as well. I know my personal stance is, woo, it saves a lot of people from wanting to pound their heads on the wall, so keep it out. But I'm also the sort of person who hates hardcore on Stealth Rocks, so I may not count here.

I know exactly what you are saying. Despite all I have said, I am not one to always love and only use the top strategies. I love seeing unusual things being used and used successfully. But what I have been stating is how I believe things just are, and need to be. If someone want to use the simpler strategy and master it, then by all means, they should do it. And if someone want to master the more difficult one, then they can do it too. I just don't think it is right for people to want to eliminate something they view as too easy to use just because they have not used it themselves enough to either be good at it or to find a counter. I love variety, and I truly hope no one strategy ever becomes so easy or so overpowering as to ruin that. But I also believe that if people are not trying to use these simple things to the best of their ability, then the ways to beat them may never become apparent.

And finally, while I'm not sure I get it 100%, I love the Pokemon analogy there.

 

[Expeditious]

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?

Focus Blast = Player has no choice but to tolerate luck, as there are no more reliable attacks available that perform a similar function (special based Fighting attack).

Fire Blast (also applies to Blizzard/Thunder/Hydro Pump): In some cases, the extra power is needed to make a two hit KO a OHKO, or a three hit KO a two hit KO. Forced to tolerate luck, but at the same time seeks to avoid it as a base 120 move is much more likely to hit than a move with an unenhanced profile is likely to get a Critical Shit. Generally in these situations what happens is either you use the move that always hits, but it doesn't kill the opponent before they kill you, or you have to deal with luck hax in order to beat them first.

Stone Edge = possible power thing, and also seeks to avoid luck (flinch hax).

Aside from these scenarios, the moves are not used competitively, except in situations in which the drawback (luck, that hated enemy) is mitigated. Rain + Thunder, or Hail + Blizzard for instance, or Hone Claws + any < 100 accuracy move.

Put simply, this is because I am right in claiming that the competitively minded seek to avoid luck.

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

Linking me to Sirlin is preaching to the choir.

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 you replaced a Pokemon player with an RNG, there would be a marked difference in play quality. You even admit as much, proving that by my own definition, Pokemon is competitive. Perhaps you should try that again if you think you are supporting your own points with that statement.

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.

This is simply absurd.

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.

The examples of what would happen were just that - examples. You're nitpicking. Call it a learning curve if you want, but if you compare how one of the top battlers here would battle to some random guy, you will see a very marked difference. You can debate semantics if you like, but that large gap is what makes the expert player an expert player.

And for some reason people are starting to confuse RNGs with AIs. They are not the same thing at all.

 

[jas61292]

Focus Blast = Player has no choice but to tolerate luck, as there are no more reliable attacks available that perform a similar function (special based Fighting attack).

Fire Blast (also applies to Blizzard/Thunder/Hydro Pump): In some cases, the extra power is needed to make a two hit KO a OHKO, or a three hit KO a two hit KO. Forced to tolerate luck, but at the same time seeks to avoid it as a base 120 move is much more likely to hit than a move with an unenhanced profile is likely to get a Critical Shit. Generally in these situations what happens is either you use the move that always hits, but it doesn't kill the opponent before they kill you, or you have to deal with luck hax in order to beat them first.

Stone Edge = possible power thing, and also seeks to avoid luck (flinch hax).

Aside from these scenarios, the moves are not used competitively, except in situations in which the drawback (luck, that hated enemy) is mitigated. Rain + Thunder, or Hail + Blizzard for instance, or Hone Claws + any < 100 accuracy move.

Put simply, this is because I am right in claiming that the competitively minded seek to avoid luck.

Woo!! Way to ignore my point. You keep saying it is about minimizing luck, but when I provide an example that shows it to be false, you even admit what I am saying is true, but then act as if you didn't. It's not about minimizing luck, its about making the best choices in order to win. Minimizing luck = Flamethrower. Maximizing chance to win = Fire Blast. Skilled players use Fire Blast because skilled player try to maximize the chance to win.

Linking me to Sirlin is preaching to the choir.

And yet what you are saying does not all support that. Skill should be playing the best way possible in order to win, and has nothing to do with the amount of luck involved. If strategy A gives a 60% chance to win and relies purely on your skill, and strategy B gives you a 75% chance to win, but involves some luck, which does the skilled player choose? B. Because it gives them the best chance to win.

If you replaced a Pokemon player with an RNG, there would be a marked difference in play quality. You even admit as much, proving that by my own definition, Pokemon is competitive. Perhaps you should try that again if you think you are supporting your own points with that statement.

Nope. Your definition said that if a player could be replaced by an RNG it is not a competition. Not only is that a horrid definition, but what I said proves it wrong. I could replace myself with an RNG. It would not necessarily be good, but it would work. If your definition was true, then Pokemon would not be a competitive game. Its as simple as that.

This is simply absurd.

Not in the slightest. And certainly less absurd than your definition of competitive. If you really think there is something wrong with my logic there, please, elaborate.

The examples of what would happen were just that - examples. You're nitpicking. Call it a learning curve if you want, but if you compare how one of the top battlers here would battle to some random guy, you will see a very marked difference. You can debate semantics if you like, but that large gap is what makes the expert player an expert player.

How about this example: take two sports teams. How about baseball, simply because they play so many games. One team is more skilled than the other. Does that mean that whenever the two teams play that the more skilled team always destroys the unskilled team? No. Does it mean that when they play the skilled team always wins? No. However once the season is over, the skilled team will have made the playoffs, and the less skilled team didn't. Short run results are not a representation of skill. Long run results are. So if you think margin of victory is a good representation of skill, then if you even tried to measure skill, your stats would be total garbage. Winning is winning, losing ins losing. Its about how much you do it, not how.

 

[Expeditious]

Woo!! Way to ignore my point. You keep saying it is about minimizing luck, but when I provide an example that shows it to be false, you even admit what I am saying is true, but then act as if you didn't. It's not about minimizing luck, its about making the best choices in order to win. Minimizing luck = Flamethrower. Maximizing chance to win = Fire Blast. Skilled players use Fire Blast because skilled player try to maximize the chance to win.

No, in the specific examples I describe Fire Blast is a OHKO whereas Flamethrower is a two hit KO, or alternately Fire Blast takes 2 and Flamethrower takes 3. You can make it the water/ice/electric/rock equivalents if you want, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the example. Also in the situations I describe, your opponent KOs you in one or two hits, and you go before your opponent.

Which means that using Flamethrower means you always lose, barring luck hax, and using Fire Blast means that you always win, barring luck hax. In this case, they are forced to deal with luck screwing them by missing, as it's still less luck than the alternative of hoping for a crit, or a status.

And outside of those specific scenarios, those abilities don't get used all that much unless there are no alternatives, or there is something to mitigate the drawbacks such as rain + Thunder, or hail + Blizzard.

Nope. Your definition said that if a player could be replaced by an RNG it is not a competition. Not only is that a horrid definition, but what I said proves it wrong. I could replace myself with an RNG. It would not necessarily be good, but it would work. If your definition was true, then Pokemon would not be a competitive game. Its as simple as that.

This is not the Glenn Beck show. If you are going to counter someone's point, counter the entire thing, not selectively quote parts of it.

Here is what I actually said:

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.

The answer is yes, it would make a difference if you replaced one or more players with a random number generator. You have admitted as much yourself before, and you are doing so again here and now. As the definition for uncompetitive is only met if the answer is no, and the answer is yes, it is not uncompetitive. The next step is to measure its competitiveness... and again by your own admission, a random number generator would play terribly when compared to you. That means there is a big difference between randomly selecting actions and the actions that you would pick which means even given the fact that you are most likely not the best battler possible that that proves that Pokemon is highly competitive, by both my own definition and your own admission. Which means the only confusing part left at this point is why you are admitting this, and yet denying it at the same time.

That, and why you continue to nitpick over the details of the example, rather than address the example itself. Actually it is not that confusing at all.

 

[jas61292]

No, in the specific examples I describe Fire Blast is a OHKO whereas Flamethrower is a two hit KO, or alternately Fire Blast takes 2 and Flamethrower takes 3. You can make it the water/ice/electric/rock equivalents if you want, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the example. Also in the situations I describe, your opponent KOs you in one or two hits, and you go before your opponent.

Which means that using Flamethrower means you always lose, barring luck hax, and using Fire Blast means that you always win, barring luck hax. In this case, they are forced to deal with luck screwing them by missing, as it's still less luck than the alternative of hoping for a crit, or a status.

You are just proving MY point. Your are proving that people are willing to accept luck in order to win. They are not minimizing luck by using Fire Blast. They are maximizing the chance to win. Yes, winning with Flamethrower requires more luck, but that is not your definition. It was simply minimizing luck witch Fire Blast does NOT do.

The answer is yes, it would make a difference if you replaced one or more players with a random number generator. You have admitted as much yourself before, and you are doing so again here and now. As the definition for uncompetitive is only met if the answer is no, and the answer is yes, it is not uncompetitive. The next step is to measure its competitiveness... and again by your own admission, a random number generator would play terribly when compared to you. That means there is a big difference between randomly selecting actions and the actions that you would pick which means even given the fact that you are most likely not the best battler possible that that proves that Pokemon is highly competitive, by both my own definition and your own admission. Which means the only confusing part left at this point is why you are admitting this, and yet denying it at the same time.

That, and why you continue to nitpick over the details of the example, rather than address the example itself. Actually it is not that confusing at all.

OK, fine. Pokemon is competitive according to you definition. That doesn't makes it less wrong. Someone brought up competitive Rock Paper Sissors before. Of course you just basically discarded that because it doesn't work with your definition. While your definition might work if we are trying to prove your points, in reality it is just not true. Almost anything can be competitive. Competitiveness is about people striving to win, not people doing things RNGs can't.

 

[Fawfulmk-II]

Excadrill can still be owned with priority users like Hitmontop(has spin utility), Breloom and special Lucario. If your team gets lolraped by Exca, it's your problem for being terrible at team-building.

Also, Sand Rush only made Excadrill broken, nobody is going to ever use Stoutland, lol.



Scarf with Swords Dance.

Thanks for making my day, Fawfulmk.

choice locked in SD? huh? unless it's doubles and you have a dude with knock off, what good is that? :/
and SD setup is riskier with blaze, since he's more brittle than Scrafty. plus balze has to worry about water, ground, rock, psychic, and fyling. Scraf? Flying and Fighting, and the only major moves that can kill a bulky Scaf are the JK moves and BB.

 

[Expeditious]

OK, fine. Pokemon is competitive according to you definition. That doesn't makes it less wrong. Someone brought up competitive Rock Paper Sissors before. Of course you just basically discarded that because it doesn't work with your definition. While your definition might work if we are trying to prove your points, in reality it is just not true. Almost anything can be competitive. Competitiveness is about people striving to win, not people doing things RNGs can't.

Rock Paper Scissors is discarded because if you replaced the entire tournament with a series of coin flips, or a single name being drawn from a hat there would be absolutely no loss of meaning. Again I would like to remind you that this is not the Glenn Beck show. And that means you do not get to claim that because someone chooses to play a competitive game casually that it is not competitive, or that because someone really wants that coin to come up heads that coin flipping is competitive. Instead what actually happens is you flip a coin to see what team gets the ball first, and then they get out there and play football. And that's about the full extent coin flipping has on competitive games.

 

[Myzozoa]

In generation 4 we saw 3 separate ways a metagame could be overcentralized, but before I say anything about that I want to address what people think of as uncompetitive.

If I create a team that can win without ever predicting, win just by switching in pokemon at the most obvious time, and using the most obvious moves, is that team uncompetitive? it removes all skill except team building from the game, yet if it still wins in a metagame, is that meta uncompetitive?

Anyway, I think people think of uncompetitive things as things that contribute to the luck of the game. Things like sand veil and bright powder, ohko moves etc. They should be removed and banned from the competitive arena, they have no place there.

Now back to what I was saying about 4th gen. I guess for the purposes of this I will divide 4th gen into 3 stages, the first stage being garchomp ou. In garchomp ou the metagame was centralized around using garchomp as a sweeper or as a revenge killer, and people would use sweepchomp to lure revengechomp, and revengechomp to kill sweepchomp. The metagame revolved around garchomp and a few pokemon faster than it (ex: gengar), or able set up on it (ex: skarmory). There were actually many strategies in chomp ou, but it boiled down to, who could either win with chomp, or not lose to chomp, is this metagame overcentralized?

In salamence/latias OU, the game was centralized around dragon and steel type rotations, the goal of the game became to wear down steels to get your dragons to sweep. Was it an overcentralized metagame? many pokemon were viable due to the nitches in the metagame (bulky waters), and many different strategies were affective, everything from hyper offense to full stall was usable. The game revolved around type combinations, but within it many different strategies could be used. Is this metagame overcentralized?

In the third stage of 4th gen OU, latias and mence were banned, and consequently, there were no dominant pokemon in the metagame. From this statement alone, it should seem like OU became very decentralized, and in some ways it was and in others it was more centralized than it had been in garchomp ou. Many different pokemon were usable because f/w/g cores were seen on every team, and most pokemon of those types could fill a role on one of those teams. These cores were mostly defensive, and the game revolved around grinding down an opponent with hazards and toxics+taunt. There was only 2 strategies, fwg offense and fwg defense. Many different pokemon were viable, but few strategies were, is this metagame overcentralized?

 

[Miscellaneous]

There is a difference between luck and calculated risk.

Using fire blast over flamethrower in order to kill X where flamethrower does not kill X is a calculated risk, there are a lot more examples. That situation is not really comparable to using brightpowder, which is axiomatically luck.

The problem with "competitiveness" is that it seems to have become and idiom for "skill-based", which is where a lot of confusion seems to arise.

 

[133k]

In the third stage of 4th gen OU, latias and mence were banned, and consequently, there were no dominant pokemon in the metagame. From this statement alone, it should seem like OU became very decentralized, and in some ways it was and in others it was more centralized than it had been in garchomp ou. Many different pokemon were usable because f/w/g cores were seen on every team, and most pokemon of those types could fill a role on one of those teams. These cores were mostly defensive, and the game revolved around grinding down an opponent with hazards and toxics+taunt. There was only 2 strategies, fwg offense and fwg defense. Many different pokemon were viable, but few strategies were, is this metagame overcentralized?

Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a metagame can be overcentralized due to a lack of options. Then again, maybe I'm reading this wrong.

 

[jas61292]

Rock Paper Scissors is discarded because if you replaced the entire tournament with a series of coin flips, or a single name being drawn from a hat there would be absolutely no loss of meaning. Again I would like to remind you that this is not the Glenn Beck show. And that means you do not get to claim that because someone chooses to play a competitive game casually that it is not competitive, or that because someone really wants that coin to come up heads that coin flipping is competitive. Instead what actually happens is you flip a coin to see what team gets the ball first, and then they get out there and play football. And that's about the full extent coin flipping has on competitive games.

Basically what I am getting out of this is:

This is not Glenn Beck, so I can disregard facts that disagree with my opinions.

And I always thought it was the other way around. Huh.

Yes RPS could be replaced by coin flips. Yes people don't actually have to do anything. AND Yes, it IS competitive.

But anyways, all you are saying is that RPS can't be competitive because YOU don't define it as competitive. Seriously, look up "competition" in a dictionary or something, and stop pretending that if something doesn't fit your made up definition that it can't be competitive. Competition has to do with two or more players or teams going against each other in an attempt to win. Luck and skill have nothing to do with it.

Seriously, all that your posts have been saying to me is that you probably dislike some luck based element in Pokemon and want a skewed definition of competitive in order to convince people to get rid of it. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe you just don't understand how competition is really defined. But either way, go look it up or something, and stop pretending that something is defined one way just because you say it is.

There is a difference between luck and calculated risk.

Using fire blast over flamethrower in order to kill X where flamethrower does not kill X is a calculated risk, there are a lot more examples. That situation is not really comparable to using brightpowder, which is axiomatically luck.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. A skilled player analyzes the probability and makes calculated risks. Yes, there is more luck involved, but it give a better chance of winning. That is what skilled players do, not simply try to minimize luck.

 

[Woodchuck]

I think that instead of using the word "uncompetitive" (in the manner that it's been incorrectly used), people should just use "promoting luck over skill without having any resemblance to a 'calculated risk'." What phrase best fits this definition?
"Overly-luck based"? "Unskilled"? "Overly random"? "Inconsistent"? (this would be an ironic word to use considering that this phrase would be describing part of the justification for banning Moody/Inconsistent)

 

[jas61292]

I think that instead of using the word "uncompetitive" (in the manner that it's been incorrectly used), people should just use "promoting luck over skill without having any resemblance to a 'calculated risk'." What phrase best fits this definition?
"Overly-luck based"? "Unskilled"? "Overly random"? "Inconsistent"? (this would be an ironic word to use considering that this phrase would be describing part of the justification for banning Moody/Inconsistent)

I completely agree. I'm not against people necessarily using this kinda of stuff as an argument. I just dislike when people try to do it by using the wrong words. It makes people think things that are not necessarily true. If people just use words like the one you suggested, then we can get back to debating the actual game features, rather than word definitions.

Personally I think there is one problem with the terms you suggested. Most of them are also subjective. And unskilled would just cause me to start another debate over word meaning. As ironic as it is, inconsistent is really the only word whose meaning, at least in this context is completely factual.

 

[Tortferngatr]

Hitler-Bypass Corollary to Godwin's law: As any internet discussion grows longer, the chance any sufficiently hated/discredited figure other than Hitler will be mentioned approaches 1.

Anti-Reactionary Corollary to Hitler-Bypass Corollary to Godwin's law: As any internet discussion grows longer, the chance Glenn Beck (along with other sufficiently irrational and right-wing political activists) will be mentioned approaches 1.




...how about "causes risks to become uncontrollable?"

 

[Expeditious]

Basically what I am getting out of this is:

This is not Glenn Beck, so I can disregard facts that disagree with my opinions.

You have resorted to the fallback that indicates that you have no valid arguments, namely attempting to dismiss facts as opinions and/or hide behind them. You are also continuing with the pedantry.

But anyways, all you are saying is that RPS can't be competitive because YOU don't define it as competitive. Seriously, look up "competition" in a dictionary or something, and stop pretending that if something doesn't fit your made up definition that it can't be competitive. Competition has to do with two or more players or teams going against each other in an attempt to win. Luck and skill have nothing to do with it.

Look up bulky in a dictionary. Show me where it says "Ferrothorn" or "Evolite Chansey" as examples. Despite this, it is generally understood that when you describe a Pokemon as bulky, you mean that they are defensively solid. This is because many subjects often develop their own lingo in order to make it easier to discuss that subject. Similarly, there would be little need for a thread trying to hammer down the definition of the word "uncompetitive" (and overcentralization, but that one seems to be settled) if the topic could be addressed simply by opening a book or doing a quick Google search. The fact that the thread was not closed near immediately by Haunter for "not promoting discussion" is indication enough that a dictionary definition is not sufficient, and instead one must be derived from subject specific lingo. Except to the overly literal minded, such as yourself.

Of course, by your own examples you prove yourself wrong yet again, as a chess game in which the prize is a kit kat bar could still very well involve people playing to win. Making it competitive, the exact thing you claimed it is not before.

Seriously, all that your posts have been saying to me is that you probably dislike some luck based element in Pokemon and want a skewed definition of competitive in order to convince people to get rid of it. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe you just don't understand how competition is really defined. But either way, go look it up or something, and stop pretending that something is defined one way just because you say it is.

Again with the attempting to shift objectivity into subjectivity, the last bastion of the defeated. Sarcasm aside, my personal feelings regarding luck have nothing to do with the fact that it is the enemy of competitive battling. They might stem from that fact, but even so they have no place in this discussion.

Edit: I gotta admit though, Tort's post is a funny one.

 

[jas61292]

You have resorted to the fallback that indicates that you have no valid arguments, namely attempting to dismiss facts as opinions and/or hide behind them. You are also continuing with the pedantry.

You obviously misunderstood me. What I was saying it that you were doing exactly what you are saying I am. I provided you with some facts contradicting your statement, and you just basically say that you do not like those facts, and then ignored them.

Look up bulky in a dictionary. Show me where it says "Ferrothorn" or "Evolite Chansey" as examples. Despite this, it is generally understood that when you describe a Pokemon as bulky, you mean that they are defensively solid. This is because many subjects often develop their own lingo in order to make it easier to discuss that subject. Similarly, there would be little need for a thread trying to hammer down the definition of the word "uncompetitive" (and overcentralization, but that one seems to be settled) if the topic could be addressed simply by opening a book or doing a quick Google search.

There is a major difference between your comparison and this actual situation. Bulky is a used in Pokemon to mean one thing. It would not necessarily make sense for us to use it in that sense outside of Pokemon. Additionally, while it is not necessarily the same as the actual definition, have you ever met anyone who did no instantly understand what you meant when you said Bulky? Probably not.

Uncompetitive on the other hand is not only obviously not as obvious (or else this thread would not exist). Not only that, but unlike bulky it does not need a Pokemon specific definition. As Pokemon is a competition, it must be competitive by an external sense. I could take any term and give it a completely false definition, and say that is what it means in a Pokemon sense. But that is not our goal. Our goal is to define the term overall, in a general sense. As far as I am concerned, a dictionary definition should suffice.

And as for:

The fact that the thread was not closed near immediately by Haunter for "not promoting discussion" is indication enough that a dictionary definition is not sufficient, and instead one must be derived from subject specific lingo. Except to the overly literal minded, such as yourself.

It obviously is promoting discussion, and weather or not the dictionary definition is right is irrelevant to that fact. The only people here who are not accepting the dictionary definition are people like you who would rather manipulate the meaning to suit your own desires. Everyone else has accepted a dictionary definition and suggested we use different terms if you want to refer to all your hated luck.

Of course, by your own examples you prove yourself wrong yet again, as a chess game in which the prize is a kit kat bar could still very well involve people playing to win. Making it competitive, the exact thing you claimed it is not before.

First, that was not me that said that. Second, I believe the person who did say that used that as an example of something that was LESS competitive, not uncompetitive. It is definitely competitive, however it was compared to a RPS competition with a higher prize. That would be MORE competitive, but that does not mean the other is not a competitive thing.

Sarcasm aside, my personal feelings regarding luck have nothing to do with the fact that it is the enemy of competitive battling.

to this I will show you a quote from over in the suspect thread:

Stop...bitching about hax...when you play a game with a large component of probability management. If you don't like playing a game with a large "luck" component, then go play a fighting game or something, this is NOT THE GAME FOR YOU.

Luck is not the enemy of competitive battling. It is the enemy of people who not good enough or too lazy to deal with it. Seriously, luck is a major part of Pokemon, and trying to limit it is just making a different game, not Pokemon. So stop trying to act like luck is inherently bad. I doubt there would be nearly as many people playing if nothing had any luck involved.

Finally,

Edit: I gotta admit though, Tort's post is a funny one.

At least we agree on something

 

[Myzozoa]

can you take your shit to pm, seriously, this a thread about semantics but the line needs to be drawn somewhere

@133k let me try to clarify. What i was trying to say about stage the of gen 4 OU was that despite many pokemon being competitively viable, there was only 1 viable strategy (fwg). And that in and of itself may be considered centralization by some. I tried to avoid saying what centralization was in my post and instead get people to think about the different ways in which a metagame might be overcentralized.

 

[133k]

can you take your shit to pm, seriously, this a thread about semantics but the line needs to be drawn somewhere

@133k let me try to clarify. What i was trying to say about stage the of gen 4 OU was that despite many pokemon being competitively viable, there was only 1 viable strategy (fwg). And that in and of itself may be considered centralization by some. I tried to avoid saying what centralization was in my post and instead get people to think about the different ways in which a metagame might be overcentralized.

Ah. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Uncanny Luck]

Expeditious, for the sake of the argument, would you be willing to define what a "properly calibrated" random number generator is?

 

[Expeditious]

Expeditious, for the sake of the argument, would you be willing to define what a "properly calibrated" random number generator is?

Properly calibrated = calibrated to the same odds as the contest.

To use the rock paper scissors example, you have a 1/3 chance to win, 1/3 chance to lose, and 1/3 chance to draw. Draw means try again until you either win or lose, so it's really 50/50. If you replaced it with heads you win tails you lose, or roll a die and odds you win evens you lose etc there would be no loss of meaning, because the RNG would play the game just as well as an actual person.

Now look at something like Pokemon. How would you even begin to calibrate a RNG for that? Just randomly rolling for actions is clearly inferior to what a player, any player would do. And even if you determine that player A has a 51.074584594% chance of victory over player B, and that isn't randomly mashing number buttons on a keyboard but rather is an accurate estimation of success including all factors then a call for a random number would still clearly result in a loss of meaning for one simple reason - while the overall odds might be measurable, most of the stuff leading up to the final victory or defeat is not random.

Of course the better question at that point would be "Why aren't you using your super computer to conquer the world instead of using it to estimate success chance at a children's cock fighting game?"

 

[Roosh]

No random number generator is actually random. It follows a set algorithm. Same with stuff like card shufflers.

 

[Thorhammer]

No random number generator is actually random. It follows a set algorithm. Same with stuff like card shufflers.

There are exceptions. random.org, for example, uses atmospheric noise to determine its random numbers.

But it appears that no video games are like that.