We have evolved our competitive pokemon scene to a very high level. Part of that elevation has been our intelligent "luck bans."
If you ask why Moody, Fissure, or Double Team are banned I'm sure you would get a hearty logical answer. The answer might be something like:
"Moves, abilities, etc. that are based entirely or mostly upon luck which require little or no skill to use have no place in a fun, competitive battling environment."
If these are the standards we are setting, then it begs the question of why Critical Hits wouldn't fall in that category. Let me give some rational points:
There is no strategy involving a critical hit. The effects are completely luck based. Where I could make the decision to use "Scald" over "Surf" because i know that 30% of the time I'm burning my opponent vs a 15 BP difference every time, that decision simply doesn't exist with critical hits as EVERY hit in Pokemon can critical. It's just a matter of when that 6.25% chance happens.
The only way you could even sort of attempt to make the strategy argument is talking about the higher crit rate moves. I would then respond here by saying to bear in mind that the chance here is still an abysmal 12.5%, and that there is still no CHOICE of a move BECAUSE of it's critical hit rate. So, for example, Stone Edge is generally agreed to be a superior option than Rock Slide because 100 BP hitting 80% of the time is much better than 75 BP hitting 90% of the time. This decision had nothing to do with the higher crit rate. The same kind of thing happens with Night Slash, Razor Leaf, etc. Noone uses Cross Chop if they have Close Combat, do they?
Put another way, let me say it like this: I spam Scald RATHER than Surf because I know 30% of the time, you'll get burned. I do not spam MOVES because i know that 6.25% of the time you'll get critted. I spam MOVES because i'm simply using a move. I just want to make this point clear because arguments comparing it to strategic "risks" like scald, or focus blast's 70% hit rate are not applicable to this discussion. It took careful planning and strategy to burn you with scald, while it took no effort or skill at all when your volt switch critted me to 0 HP.
For anyone who will say something to the effect of "There is luck in Pokemon and there always has been. Crits are part of it, and thats the way it is". Hate to break it to you Pokemon purists, but the very function of what Smogon does is govern the Pokemon world to help make Pokemon fair and fun. If youre going to be a purist, then come and battle me and my team of 6 Arceus's. Things get regulated and controlled for a reason, so you're not standing on good legs with the purist argument because allowing crits logically means allowing lots of other things too.
For anyone who says "What comes around goes around, you'll win the same amount you lose by unfair crits in the long run" this is such a warped way of thinking. Firstly, this precludes the notion multiple ladder battling. Yes, over time and after many battles statistics will even out, but suppose I'm in a tournament, or only care about some battles out of the many. Losing one game because of NOTHING i did wrong seems an awful thing to happen don't you? Secondly, thats the easy way out of an argument. "Everyone has to deal with the unfairness, so just suck it up" Why not just skip all that, and get rid of the unfairness?
All that having been said, I think the main I point I want to make is that I think its at least worth the conversation don't you? It just seems inconsistent to me to allow random double power moves at no control of the battlers for every attacking move and yet not to allow Double Team.
If you ask why Moody, Fissure, or Double Team are banned I'm sure you would get a hearty logical answer. The answer might be something like:
"Moves, abilities, etc. that are based entirely or mostly upon luck which require little or no skill to use have no place in a fun, competitive battling environment."
If these are the standards we are setting, then it begs the question of why Critical Hits wouldn't fall in that category. Let me give some rational points:
There is no strategy involving a critical hit. The effects are completely luck based. Where I could make the decision to use "Scald" over "Surf" because i know that 30% of the time I'm burning my opponent vs a 15 BP difference every time, that decision simply doesn't exist with critical hits as EVERY hit in Pokemon can critical. It's just a matter of when that 6.25% chance happens.
The only way you could even sort of attempt to make the strategy argument is talking about the higher crit rate moves. I would then respond here by saying to bear in mind that the chance here is still an abysmal 12.5%, and that there is still no CHOICE of a move BECAUSE of it's critical hit rate. So, for example, Stone Edge is generally agreed to be a superior option than Rock Slide because 100 BP hitting 80% of the time is much better than 75 BP hitting 90% of the time. This decision had nothing to do with the higher crit rate. The same kind of thing happens with Night Slash, Razor Leaf, etc. Noone uses Cross Chop if they have Close Combat, do they?
Put another way, let me say it like this: I spam Scald RATHER than Surf because I know 30% of the time, you'll get burned. I do not spam MOVES because i know that 6.25% of the time you'll get critted. I spam MOVES because i'm simply using a move. I just want to make this point clear because arguments comparing it to strategic "risks" like scald, or focus blast's 70% hit rate are not applicable to this discussion. It took careful planning and strategy to burn you with scald, while it took no effort or skill at all when your volt switch critted me to 0 HP.
For anyone who will say something to the effect of "There is luck in Pokemon and there always has been. Crits are part of it, and thats the way it is". Hate to break it to you Pokemon purists, but the very function of what Smogon does is govern the Pokemon world to help make Pokemon fair and fun. If youre going to be a purist, then come and battle me and my team of 6 Arceus's. Things get regulated and controlled for a reason, so you're not standing on good legs with the purist argument because allowing crits logically means allowing lots of other things too.
For anyone who says "What comes around goes around, you'll win the same amount you lose by unfair crits in the long run" this is such a warped way of thinking. Firstly, this precludes the notion multiple ladder battling. Yes, over time and after many battles statistics will even out, but suppose I'm in a tournament, or only care about some battles out of the many. Losing one game because of NOTHING i did wrong seems an awful thing to happen don't you? Secondly, thats the easy way out of an argument. "Everyone has to deal with the unfairness, so just suck it up" Why not just skip all that, and get rid of the unfairness?
All that having been said, I think the main I point I want to make is that I think its at least worth the conversation don't you? It just seems inconsistent to me to allow random double power moves at no control of the battlers for every attacking move and yet not to allow Double Team.
