Deep Blue would like to have a word with you..
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
"Uncompetitive" and "Overcentralization": What do they really mean?
- Thread starter Woodchuck
- Start date
I am aware of this. Even so I believe that my point is clear.
An example of an AI program that has had a fair bit of success with chess. I'm not sure what this has to do with RNGs though. Or the main topic here.
Yes, I don't think anyone has a problem with what a random number generator is, or how it works. The problem I have been having is that you have been saying that not being able to be played by an RNG is a requirement for being competitive. I just have no idea how you came up with that or what could possibly make that true. If you do have some valid reason, I would actually like to hear it.
You know, I feel that might be just a bit of an understatement. Not that it is relevant or anything.
Fixed to reflect what I actually said. That should be self evident. If it isn't, prior posts handle it. That requires you stop selective quoting though, which seems impossible.
The problem is that a Random Number Generator, by definition, cannot be weighted toward any certain outcome (that is "calibrated") because at that point, it's obviously not Random.
That's why it'd then be called an AI, not an RNG; the term "calibrated RNG" is like saying "opaque window"-- if it's opaque, it's not really a window.
Of course, it's all semantics, but you REALLY should know what RNG stands for...
Which is otherwise known as an "oxymoron".
And why is Quick Claw allowed? They banned it for three Gens (can't remember if it existed in GSC) straight, IIRC.
It wasn't banned in Gen IV, IIRC...
I always assumed that the Standard Rules' hax-item clause (for all generations) included: Razor Fang/Claw, Brightpowder, Lax Incense, Quick Claw, Focus Band, and some other item I'm likely forgetting.
I'm pretty sure the hax-item clause was never in the Standard Rules.
I've been using Bright Powder Snowcloak Froslass in Gen4, so I guess it was allowed.
1) That's what I meant. If you think that was an attempt to misquote you you are mistaken. I was just trying to rephrase your point.
2) No its not evident. You say that something is competitive if an RNG couldn't play as well as a person. And yet, that very idea just came randomly out of nowhere. You never give a reason why that is true. As far as I can tell you have no reasoning behind it. If you do have reasoning, please, tell us. But stop acting like I'm attacking you when I am not. I was just asking a question.
To be honest, I know very little about programming, to the point where I don't even like talking about it because I'm afraid someone will call me out on how little I know; and I KNOW I could code a program to properly match a moderately competative player online; and maybe even throw in some difficulty levels. And I could make an RNG which would have no where near the same results; even in-game battles aren't determined by that. Maybe to a degree, but that's about as absurd as your drastic watering-down of R-P-S. Much like martial-arts, there is an intense deal of mind-games and probability mathmatics that goes into competitive rock-paper-scissors. The chance that someone will pick the same choice twice in a row is almost completely psychological, and not random in the least. I've heard people argue that a card-shuffling program is inferior to a true RNG because it has a human-like bias, and simple human psychology and shuffling technique, as well as basic physics, means people ALWAYS "cheat" when shuffling, because it's not genuinely random. Let's please all try and get off what is and isn't random, and knock off this nonsense. It get's us nowhere but "Herp! No, derp!"
After all guys, a miss and a hit with Fire Blast is still worth the same as two hits with Flamethrower. That's still a 2HKO. You might as well have used a fire-type Sky Attack. In that scenario. That's "calculated risk", I guess. And honestly, I'd argue being competitive does, in fact, in the specific case of pokemon here that we are trying so hard to establish despite waves of resistance from ALL SIDES, mean taking that risk, throwing caution to the wind, leaving your victory teetering on the whims of a hope and a prayer, and a little in-game number generation, and using that damn fire blast for the kill. Because you can't afford not to.
I've seen a LOT of pointless babble since I've been gone these past days. Really guys? This hasn't been locked or finished yet? We KNOW what these terms mean. We also have found out that a lot of people are really, REALLY butthurt. Let's not turn this into WoW, where 101% of the player-base plays by bitching and whining about every little thing that they find unfair for a while until it gets banned or nerfed (so glad I don't play THAT, just listening about it makes me want to vomit). I seriously have not met a single WoW "fan" that doesn't have a list of shit to complain about regularly. That isn't how pokemon aught to be. Uncompetitive? Over-Centralizing? We call that STEALTH ROCK. And you know what? We get over it, and because we're all good players, we complain now and then, suck it up, and keep on playing. Because we're competitive. We find ways around it, and don't let it stop us. Think I'm wrong? WHO CARES. Replace the words Stealth Rock with Garchomp. With Blaziken. With Kyogre and Groudon. I don't really care. The point is there. You KNOW what I mean.
Do with it what you will.
Random Number Generator = generating random numbers.
Calibrated = certain outputs produce certain outcomes.
For rock paper scissors, since the odds are 50/50, that means 50% of all outputs must indicate a win for Player A, and 50% of all outputs must indicate a win for Player B. Could be 1-50 = A wins, 51-100 = B wins, could be odd = A wins, even = B wins, as long as that condition is met, the RNG is properly calibrated. If the odds were instead 75/25, it'd still be easy to indicate what random outputs mean what. And because a randomly generated number followed by a check to indicate the result that number indicates produces exactly the same results as a rock paper scissors match, and can play rock paper scissors as well as an actual person, it is not competitive.
All this talk of RNGs and AIs and such though has caused us to not only miss the forest for the trees, but to crash into one George of the Jungle style. Not to mention a certain someone is ignoring it all anyways...
So getting back to the actual topic of defining the word uncompetitive, aside from all this it would be easier to find definitions of competitive, that if reversed mean noncompetitive.
Competitive strategies tend to minimize luck. This is why Evasion and OHKO moves are banned, and it is why Flamethrower is generally preferred over Fire Blast.
Competitive means two or more people who are at least decent, and playing to win against each other. Worded this way because not everyone is a stellar player - one or both of them could be learning, for example. But as long as they're at least trying, as opposed to using an in game team, or just not caring if they win or lose its competitive.
The definitions though have to be reversible to mean non competitive. For example saying a tournament is competitive isn't a way of finding an uncompetitive definition, because while the tournament most likely is competitive, are matches outside of tournaments necessarily not competitive? Of course not!
And while we probably already do have a definition for uncompetitive, it might not be the same definition, leading to talking past each other. That's why this thread is here, or at least that's why I thought this thread is here. Hopefully this at least will kill the spinning in circles, so that something can actually be accomplished.
Expeditious: You've contradicted yourself horribly there.
"Competitive strategies tend to minimize luck."
"For example saying a tournament is competitive isn't a way of finding an uncompetitive definition, because while the tournament most likely is competitive, are matches outside of tournaments necessarily not competitive? Of course not!"
Just because competitive strategies usually minimize luck, it doesn't mean that something that revolves around luck is automatically uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive is something that does not seek to win. For example, a team that runs 6 Unown is clearly not designed to win, and is just playing for fun (or trolling, which I guess is fun for them).
As I've said twice already, luck-based or skill-based are different from competitive/uncompetitive. It'd be really good to differentiate between the two in that way - Sand Veil is a luck-based ability, for example, while, say, Natural Cure is a skill-based one. Meanwhile, SS TTar is competitive while Unnerve TTar is, uhh, not.
"Competitive strategies tend to minimize luck."
"For example saying a tournament is competitive isn't a way of finding an uncompetitive definition, because while the tournament most likely is competitive, are matches outside of tournaments necessarily not competitive? Of course not!"
Just because competitive strategies usually minimize luck, it doesn't mean that something that revolves around luck is automatically uncompetitive.
Uncompetitive is something that does not seek to win. For example, a team that runs 6 Unown is clearly not designed to win, and is just playing for fun (or trolling, which I guess is fun for them).
As I've said twice already, luck-based or skill-based are different from competitive/uncompetitive. It'd be really good to differentiate between the two in that way - Sand Veil is a luck-based ability, for example, while, say, Natural Cure is a skill-based one. Meanwhile, SS TTar is competitive while Unnerve TTar is, uhh, not.
Minor nitpick, but Unnerve could be competitive as I'm sure that there are people (myself included) that would use T-Tar if it wasn't for having to have Sandstorm up.
Am I the only one that feels this has gotten a little... off topic? We're trying to define a couple of words, and now we're talking about RNG's and RPS, and only god knows what other potential acronyms...
Fact is, Competitive was defined a couple of pages back. This is the only way it is officially defined. There is no other definition, Honest! Look in any dictionary, and you won't find any reference in the minutest towards skill or luck. On that front, that's all there is to it.
Now, whether you want to create a new definition that is specifically for pokemon, and based around skill or luck or some such, well, that's your own prerogative. I won't pretend to know whether that would be good, bad or somewhere in the middle; but ultimately, this is where it stands. If people decide they want this word to have a specific meaning in a pokemon context, well, I guess you can debate over what that is exactly. However, if you don't want to make up a new definition, then there's really nothing more to say.
:/
Fact is, Competitive was defined a couple of pages back. This is the only way it is officially defined. There is no other definition, Honest! Look in any dictionary, and you won't find any reference in the minutest towards skill or luck. On that front, that's all there is to it.
Now, whether you want to create a new definition that is specifically for pokemon, and based around skill or luck or some such, well, that's your own prerogative. I won't pretend to know whether that would be good, bad or somewhere in the middle; but ultimately, this is where it stands. If people decide they want this word to have a specific meaning in a pokemon context, well, I guess you can debate over what that is exactly. However, if you don't want to make up a new definition, then there's really nothing more to say.
:/
No. Tyranitar loses a shitload of usfulness when you take away Sandstream. It's what allows Tyranitar to fun ction so well as a special tank, and as one of the best Latios switch-ins. Taking away Sandstream on Tyranitar is taking away the thing that makes him so great.
The "check" isn't part of the RNG. The RNG gave you a number between 1 and 100. The "check" is an AI, since it's making a "decision", not generating a random number.
Like, if the odds are 75/25, the RNG is still going to give you numbers 1 through 100 with 1% chance of each. It's just that the AI, that is, the "check", interprets it differently.
I know this isn't all that important, but really, there's a huge difference between a RNG, which by definition, can't be "calibrated", and an AI, which makes a "calibrated" decision using an RNG.
Not to mention there's a connotative difference, since "RNG" implies blind decisions, while "AI" suggests relatively "smarter", "calibrated" actions.
Just one thing. Script =/= AI.
A Script makes a random number call, followed by simple if = then statements to turn that random number into an action.
An AI actually thinks and makes decisions.
Which of these describes roll 1d100, win if the result is 51+ and lose if the result is 50 or lower? Exactly. It's still randomly generating actions, because it's an RNG. The script part only turns those random numbers into an output of results.
But this is so far out into left field that it has since circled around the entire stadium.
And for all the talk of Sand Veil... what has Sand Veil done, other than make people rage about hax and ponder if Rough Skin would be a better ability? Unless I'm missing something it's part of the reason Garchomp got banned to Uber in Gen 4. Which if anything would support my point about competitive tying in to skill based victories, with luck being something to minimize whenever possible.
A Script makes a random number call, followed by simple if = then statements to turn that random number into an action.
An AI actually thinks and makes decisions.
Which of these describes roll 1d100, win if the result is 51+ and lose if the result is 50 or lower? Exactly. It's still randomly generating actions, because it's an RNG. The script part only turns those random numbers into an output of results.
But this is so far out into left field that it has since circled around the entire stadium.
And for all the talk of Sand Veil... what has Sand Veil done, other than make people rage about hax and ponder if Rough Skin would be a better ability? Unless I'm missing something it's part of the reason Garchomp got banned to Uber in Gen 4. Which if anything would support my point about competitive tying in to skill based victories, with luck being something to minimize whenever possible.
Sand Veil definitely was part of the reason Garchomp was banned, but it was not because the ability was uncompetitive. If it was, why did other users of it stay? No the reason for the Chomp ban was that he was overpowering, and over-centralizing. Sand Veil contributed to that, yes, but its not like people saw that and went, "if it wasn't for that ability I wouldn't think it was OP". Garchomp was just too good for the meta, and while the ability may have helped, it in and of itself was not the reason.
The phrase we are looking for here is "mutually exclusive". Something can be skill-based and competitive, skill-based and uncompetitive, luck-based and competitive OR luck-based and uncompetitive.
Something being skill-based does not inherently make it competitive or vice versa. Same applies to luck-based.
I think we all agree here that we're looking for a competative environment that minimizes luck. Notice how many words I use there. I didn't just babble about competative, what it means, and how luck applies. I agree with the comment above about "mutually exclusive", and that it applies.
What I don't understand is why we're still going on about AI/script/RNG. Throw a dart at a coin while it's in mid-air; there's still a chance it'll do everything right and beat you. Why does this apply at all? I still fail to see where either luck or RNGs have anything to do with what we've established here as Uncompetitive or Over-centralizing.
What I don't understand is why we're still going on about AI/script/RNG. Throw a dart at a coin while it's in mid-air; there's still a chance it'll do everything right and beat you. Why does this apply at all? I still fail to see where either luck or RNGs have anything to do with what we've established here as Uncompetitive or Over-centralizing.
Which is why I said that it was part of the reason. Which clearly implies that there are other factors. Since we're agreeing, moving on.
Bobbilytus: Well, wouldn't agree on that completely. I wouldn't say we all want an environment that minimises luck - I'd much rather have a Pokemon simulator. For example, if you were to remove critical hits and things like flinch/parahax, I'd hate it, even though those are luck-based.
That said, I think the point of this topic is done with. We've pretty clearly pointed out that competitive isn't what people meant when it was being said in the OU Suspect Testing topic, and we've offered an alternative to that. I guess the conversations about Garchomp and luck-based elements should move back there?
That said, I think the point of this topic is done with. We've pretty clearly pointed out that competitive isn't what people meant when it was being said in the OU Suspect Testing topic, and we've offered an alternative to that. I guess the conversations about Garchomp and luck-based elements should move back there?