As one of the old competitive players said in his retirement speech: "unfortunate" doesn't even begin to describe my series, this game rewards blind luck and nothing else.
he didnt really care but he came on smogtours every 40 minutes to check the battke. very logical he assumes i was fully aware of being in a losing position when ive never said that, and even then, being in a losing position isnt enough of a justification to forfeit a game. ive won tons of games where i was in a much more difficult situation but it didnt prevent me from ending up as the final the winner, it happened 2 years ago against bloo and it happened last year against cosine. i also couldnt predict the battle would last for so long. i couldnt predict my opponent would start using timezones at his advantage and make the battle last forever and i couldnt predict tournament directors would do absolutely nothing about it despite the evident lack of sportmanship. if you have a win condition, you use it before turn 400, as someone said in this thread, and not at turn 1200 or whatever it was. but anyway this post coming from the same guy whos still mad over me not wanting him on the italian team last year after he went 0-3 in 2015, it doesnt really hurt me. remember kids, when you lose, all the haters come back altogether. i just used the word 'lose', and well id like to say something more about it. i may be the loser of the battle. i most certainly am. but i dont think im the only loser from yesterdays game. i think abr is a loser too for showing everyone how much pitiful his life is. you dont believe abr was intentionally trying to extend the game as long as he possibly could, and he was just doing it for the memes? well i think you should. but if you dont believe that, then you should be able to tell me why he didnt try to win with the sd skarmory at turn 200 instead of doing it at turn 1200. he pretty much sacrificed 6 hrs of his time just for the memes. i respect that a lot. it takes a lot of dedication. i dont know many people who would do that, especially with no gain. putting an online videogame ahead of your irl relationship, i will always respect that. or maybe he just didnt have anything better to do than sitting in front of his laptop for 7 hours. thats also an option but the real loser from yesterday, it was neither me nor abr. it was you. it was the spectators. just wanted to get that out. like i said something went wrong during my preparation for this olt, i probably should have asked myself some questions after i struggled to make playoffs for the 1st time ever, instead i just ignored this warning. ill be gone for a while but u can bet ill come back in great style
@@chrisdrums1910 Didn't say it was. It's a UA-cam marketing tactic that works, and it's clearly working for BKC based on the viewership of his latest videos. "Clickbait" isn't necessarily a negative term, though it generally carries that unfortunate connotation.
@@BensonMakesMusic i meant to reply to the other guy, my bad. i think it’s great he’s doing this. Exposing people to analytical and educational content is awesome
@@chrisdrums1910 Ah, you good, my bad all the same. 100% agreed - great stuff lately, a really cool look into some of Pokemon's more interesting ideas. Not to mention *daily videos*
For anyone curious, if a player attacks 20 times, they have a 72.5% chance to get at least 1 crit. Even accounting for all the turns spent switching or attacking with moves that do negligible damage, I would say the vast majority of games involve at least 20 attacks that matter. 2 players attacking this many times makes it ((15/16)^40) = 7.6%). You should realistically be getting a big crit and/or getting hit by a big crit in 13 out of every 14 games
This brings me back to Gen 4 OU where stone edge misses or crits, and it feels like there’s no in between. And I have a suggestion BKC, showcasing BL Pokémon for a generation you favor (like ADV etc) and what kind of support they need to be viable and not be a hindrance. Or just build a few teams featuring them for fun, I like seeing the potential of some weaker Pokémon.
This point resonates pretty hard with me as I've been getting back into playing with gen 1 ou and randoms. It's confidence boosting to know that, even if I don't have the foresight of a chess master or the knowledge of a professor, I can still good just by factoring in chance to my decisions around positioning.
Everybody remembers crits and flinches, nobody remembers ranges. Though I still stand by my point that if you can't play around luck, you're not a good player
Damage rolls are actually the thing that really can make me enraged. All the other rng is fine, but when you get that low roll in a crucial turn the feeling of robbery is too much.
One time I took 46 from a hydro on my scizor I already went for 1 swords dance and knew I couldn’t ko it with leftovers recovery I thought I could take the second hit then sweep then it did 64 and that was so upsetting I ended up losing that one too
All those near KOs on the game reminds me of an even more ubiquitous luck-based mechanic: damage rolls! Who's to say if any of those were close rolls, especially when softening a guy just enough for another mon, unless the person cries foul? The bias of just noticing it when it's a problem is even stronger with that
I think an aspect that wasn’t touched on is rolls which means every move now has a chance to crit, high roll, and sometimes have a secondary effect. In the example game when Mamoswine earthquaked the Keldeo it was to my knowledge an 81.3% chance to KO with rocks which while keldeo only ended up being sack fodder if keldeo was ohko’d then maybe at another point in the game Monai could have claimed a more significant pokemon
I would love to hear more about your opinions on Bo3s (or potentially more matches than just 3) Specific questions about it: Does introducing more games encourage people to lean into variance? (Matchup fishing or high variance teams) How many more games would be sufficient to reduce game variance? What additional limitations that only apply across multiple games, such as which team of pokemon you bring, would alleviate variance instead of emphasizing it?
great questions. quick answer: it's easier to fish for matchup in bo1 because you only have to get it right once, and you have to nail said matchup in a certain game in bo3, making it much harder to pull off. bo5 in one tier has been tried before (ost 2016) and has generally been too exhausting, whereas bo3 has consistently been solid since it first started seeing use (2010).
Alot of it has to do with a strong lack of control factors, tbh. I have played Pokemon as long as it has been around and have also played both older monster collectors like Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest and newer monster collectors like Digimon and Yo-Kai Watch. One thingI have noticed across many of these games is how much more control you have over things especially with their battle systems. You can reliably buff, increase the rate of or guarantee alot of things in all these games. Granted, random crits and random misses still happen in those games but the system makes dealing with the inevitability far more forgiving. The usual 3v3 or 4v4 systems make it so you can defend and buff accuracy so the next time you can reliably connect a hit. You can increase your crit rate reliably or even guarantee crits if you set up, you can guarantee nasty status conditions (plenty that are WAY stronger than Toxic or Thunder Wave) but also clear them away more reliably and even if you lose a valuable teammate, you can revive them (tho that usually comes with a heavy MP cost). With Pokemon's 1v1 system, alot of it is just whittling down their Rock-Paper-Scissors matchups with little control over the move even landing, so you either commit and pray or switch and THEN commit and pray.
This is why I like Wolfey. iirc he tends to acknowledge the rng that did and didn't happen, and he is very keen to find the one hax route to win in a "lost" game
I can say this - in one of the very few Pokemon Showdown games I've played, I only won because of a lucky Thunderbolt paralysis, and then the paralysis being full.
If you are playing a game where you and your opponent are constantly exchanging attacks back and forth, you are estimated to have seen a crit by Turn 8, or Turn 12 in Gen 7+. By those statistics, a game without any crits is in and of itself an anomaly.
I've played a lot of card games over the years, including hearthstone which has BONKERS rng, and the communities in those games are VERY aware of this. what makes you an exceptional player in those games is making your strategy as consistent as possible and playing in a way that maximizes your odds.
This is something pokeaim’s pretty good at. Dude will get crit by like a fakeout or something and start talking about all the moves he’s in range to get killed by at max roll, with exact percentages and everything. Man’s nuts 😂
Rng in Pokemon I think is a good thing, precisely because it doesn't make certain outcomes definitive. I think it encourages on-the-fly decision making & encourages plays to minimize potential risk.
Sorry about the completely unrelated question to the video, I just heard you talking about Alakazam not getting crit by Tentacruel Spin and. It being put into range of Banded Shard by Mamoswine and it got me thinking, does Zam ever switch into Scald or Toxic to avoid Thunder Wave from mons like Reuniclus, Ferrothorn, or the extraordinarily rate Blissey/Chansey?
This is why Covert Cloak is such an interesting item. Removing secondary effects does so much for consistency. It's common in the cart 3v3 metagame just to make something like switching in on Flutter Mane sball not have to risk that spdef drop, or flinches from dark pulse hydreigon etc. I expect the opportunity cost in current gen ou is too high for its usage to be common though, competing with boots and such
Every time anybody uses a non-set damaging move, RNG comes into play with damage rolls, whether it crits or not. It's not just a matter of "does secondary effect proc/did attack crit?" when a max damage roll can do ~15% more damage than a minimum damage roll.
That's why ladder is good, because it rewards the best players for playing good for hundreds of battles. Tournaments, especially BO1 (BO3 lessens the effect of luck but it can still happen) just rewards the luckiest most of the time.
Something I would really appreciate, as someone not at all versed with the culture of competitive pokemon, is a thorough explanation of the term "hax". I've picked up on a sense of it, but I suspect there's a deeper understanding to be had
@@gregoryford2532 The etymology is fairly obvious, but the way BKC talks about "small hax", "big hax", "that's not hax; it's rng" etc. suggests to me that there's quite a lot of nuance that's going over my head
In this case, hax, I guess, refers to events that not only should not happen, but also refers to unlikely game-changing events of luck. Thus the statement of distinguishing between RNG and hax (in this case, RNG is being used synonymously with variance instead of luck) and big hax and small hax (which imply a crit and a secondary effect on a Pokémon that would not want statuses, or even a crit against a Pokémon that otherwise would have swept.)
People might disagree with this, but the rng is pretty much half of what makes Pokemon so fun. Playing around people is half of it, but adapting to different situations that come up because of the rng, and trying to account for all of the potential rng is part of it too. That's also why evasion is so frustrating - there's nothing to play around or agency on your part. When you click focus blast, it's a choice (well metagame stuff might force it blah blah) but when they click minimize, there's no part of that you chose. Maybe if moves that never miss didn't have such terrible power it'd be more reasonable to play around but as is it's stupid. Game freak should still definitely put in a better special fighting move than aura sphere that's not 70% accurate
I've experimented with 100% accuracy teams on ladder in the tiers I like to play, do you think such a style of team could be tournament viable? I feel like there has to be at least a couple possible teams in every tier that happens to have 100% accuracy moves across the board, that are viable. Because there are so many good potential sets out there...? I know this constraint trims off a LOT
This is basically the ancient Surf vs Hydro Pump debate. It's situational. Someone using Fire Blast over your Flamethrower is going to automatically have a tempo advantage over you during neutral exchanges as they'll get more out of their Fire Blast on average (110*.85) than you will with Flamethrower. That's not to mention the importance of hitting 2HKOs over 3-4HKOs on important threats. Especially since a lot of those 2HKOs work off of chip and hazard damage, which high power moves will build up much more quickly due to both threat and direct damage. If you can find ways to work around this or compensate for it directly (hazards) then your idea could have some viability.
I basically do run only 100% accuracy moves (except for status) because I hate missing attacks that much. It's a good OU team and you wouldn't miss another move (pun intended) looking at it.
I think Pokémon is similar to poker. You put yourself in a position with building battling and making plays to have the highest percentage outcome. If u lose on a 90% draco I’ll take that because over 1000 games in that same scenario I’ll win 900 times. Same with poker you could be all but locked up but the only card in the deck that fucks you shows up at the end. You live with the consequences knowing that math is on your side
The probability of everything going so smoothly up to turn 17 was 0.193. The game so far; which was referred to as ‘clean’ and not containing much rng, was in fact a game with quite uncommon rng. Compare this to a game where a hydro punch misses turn one on a switch. A lot of people would say it was unfortunate, even though the two comparisons have a similar chance.
Competitive Pokemon has an element of luck involved in it depending on certain effects of moves and the chances of a critical hit but don't forget They got brightpowder and king's rock banned
There’s healthy luck and unhealthy luck. If you are using an item purely for the chance your opponent missing or not being able to move then it’s not healthy and degenerate
@@isaiahmcgirt5832 it wasn't the first time that I encountered the effects of quick claw or even focus band happening multiple times (lol Battle Frontier) but these items have only like what, 20% chances of their intended effects occurring, or possibly even less than that. The metagame allows moves like Iron Head and Air Slash which combined with Serene Grace double their chances of a luck based effect, which go as high as 60% (lol Body Slam) but it's the player's job to figure out plans for these scenarios when the unexpected situations occur. So are the 20% chance of the effects of BrightPowder or King's Rock (if using Brightpowder I dunno if you multiply evasion for Garchomp by 0.8 or just add 20% extra) significant enough that its utilization as an item supersedes items that are more valuable and consistent such as Berries and even choice items? You can even have scenarios such as Hydro Pump and even Fire Blast missing twice and the odds for that are staggeringly low but if it happens, it's still on the player that missed to deal with the battle scenario that happened as a result of those misses. Won't argue too hard about this though. I'm just glad that recent suspect test turned out the way they did with Walking Wake.
@@isaiahmcgirt5832 yeah, even if it's nice to freeze the opponent, you're mainly bringing ice beam for its coverage. If you're using bright powder, it's only for the small miss chance, and I believe king's rock got banned due to its interaction with multi-hit moves.
"In RBY, we call it luck when your opponent does NOT get a critical hit." - Hipmonlee I know that's RBY they're talking about, but I feel like having that mentality in any gen helps.
There's another way in which luck pops up that a lot of players neglect: prediction. This is a controversial because players like to think of prediction as a skill, and sometimes it can be. Against a weaker opponent who's very predictable, it is. But when both players are playing optimally it really does come down to a coin flip. Let's look at a clean example. Player 1 has a bisharp at 50% with sucker punch and knock off. Player 2 has a Garchomp at 10% with swords dance and earthquake. All other Pokemon are fainted. There is a clean nash equilibrium in this instance. The nash strategy for the bisharp player is to use sucker punch with probability n/(n+1) and knock off with probability 1/(n+1) where n is the number of pp sucker punch has left. If the bisharp player uses this strategy they will always win with probability n/(n+1) no matter what the Garchomp player does and when the Garchomp player does happen to win it won't be because of skill, it will just mean they got lucky. It's a different kind of luck than a move missing but it's still luck
You’re right that people put a magnifying glass over one part of the game to make it look more significant than it really is and if you play many games of Pokémon then you will not be outside the mean level of hax. I remember that one poketuber that does the battle tower on emerald got mad at me because I corrected his interpretation of the rng that happened during one of his streaks. He had a pure hax gengar as his last mon and had to kill an already cursed up registeel because he got unlucky with something. He then started calculating the odds of the exact string of outcomes happening and then said the chance of him winning that fight was one in billions but he fundamentally didn’t understand what he was calculating or the meaning behind it. What he did would be like throwing a dart out of an airplane and then finding it and saying “holy shit guys the chance this blade of grass would be hit is like less than life emerging from non life!” You aren’t making any meaningful statements about chance when you do stuff like that. What he was really looking for was P(success) in which his gengar beat the registeel and with hypnosis and confuse ray it was more like a 50/50 to beat him rather than one in billions. People just don’t understand statistics or how or what they are trying to measure with them.
Turn 4 you shouldn't see a 1/16 event but if you're looking at an event where you play thousands of turns you should expect crits regularly about every 10-20 turns
When Joey started the Embrace The Hax trend (may it rest in pieces), he did implicitly bring up the fair point that this (meta)game is balanced around non-100% attack moves, that can crit, miss or have secondary effects and these things should or at least could happen in every other game.
Not sure how much it matters to other people, but I much prefer the older video titles over adding "here's why" at the end of everything and changing the part before that to accommodate this addition.
I like the idea that when team building, you have to take into account the safety of a team. Something like a Keldeo knowing either secret sword or focus blast forces the player to consider the risks involved with their team. Or if a team is heavily physical and susceptible to burns, having a heal bell/aromatherapy mon can counteract that risk.
I've had people rage at me for RNG when I've gone for like 44% odds stuff. Yeah I flinch-crit with Rock Slide Aerodactyl, winning still wasn't unlikely against stuff that didn't immediately KO back.
Maybe you made this point in the video already (didn't have time to fully watch) but part of this is the human mind's bias with probability. If we miss a 90% accuracy move we feel cheated, because in our minds, 90 is a near-guaranteed hit and not getting it is bad luck on the level of losing 5 consecutive coin flips. The same applies to getting hit by a 30 accuracy move. The Fire Emblem games actually changed their RNG system to make the luck "feel right", making attacks with over 50 accuracy far more likely to hit (roll 2d100 and if EITHER is below the accuracy number then it lands) and below 50 accuracy moves much less accurate (roll 2d100 and BOTH need to be under the accuracy number).
Pokemon is not a game of nailing every hit and relying on "guaranteed wins" or every roll in your favor. It's about having managing risk, having escape plans, improvising and adapting, and taking the advantage when you can. The rng doesn't make the game worse, it makes it better. The best players are not the ones with better rng, but the ones who win despite bad luck.
While I generally agree with most of your point, I don't agree that RNG makes the game better. All of the concepts you mention, luck included, exist within most complex games played against a human opponent. There are valid reasons why Gamefreak decided to add RNG into a game like Pokemon but none of were done for competitive purposes. Competitively, I think RNG just bogs down the experience by adding more variance to the already high amount of natural variance.
@@IschmarVIi think he meant the game wasn't designed to be competitive...which let's be honest, it's not, things like evasion clause, sleep clause and many other things that were created to make the competitive more "bearable" aren't actually into the game. Is just like saying the casual mode of pokemon is hard when you played the game with a bunch of rules that you implemented, like nuzlockes.
As someone who can still get salty when missing a Hydro, I have to say, I wouldn't enjoy Pokémon as much as I do if not for RNG. It adds so much flare to this unique strategy game like nothing else.
When are we going talk about thunderwave? Moody bad cause promotes RNG playstyle, Sleep bad cause RNG playstyle, Evasion Bad cause RNG, how is T-Wave not on that list? I put T-Wave on a spd wall Pair it with two physical walls and when mega mawile switches in on chancey cause you HAVE to cause your gren or whatever is just going waste pp and boom all of sudden your mawile is paralyzed, out speed by every physical wall mawile needs to break later, and even thou you packed t-punch for skarmory or you ran speed to out speed hippo all of a sudden you will have to deal with skarmory being able to roost off the t-punch super effective, you will have to eat a eq from hippo and on top of that there is a 30 precent chance that rng will make you eat two eqs or get whirlwind out with out even touching skarmory. Zygrade was banned cause glare and sub tell para, a pure rng playstlye which in gen 7 serp also does. How is T-wave not seen as better then double team? Like I double team scizior or whatever on a switch in which gives them a chance to miss, how is me clicking T-wave different? Not only does it still gives them a chance to not deal damage but it cuts speed is cut in half so I can U-turn out risk free and later on they will still be paralyzed, If i switch out after double teaming or if they switch out after sand attack, that goes away. The only real counter is you pack heal bell or only switch Starmie in on T-Wave users it is going stick even after switching out. Like I get why you hate scald I main Gen7 but I can not get my head around why T-wave is not seen as ban worthy. In your example of t-tar switches in on latios I have seen Tar switch in on T-wave latios and all of a sudden that rain teams mamoswine just wins, that is if latios doesnt win cause its self off a lucky para turn. I would love a video on your thoughts on T-wave and just that move like you and scald I dont think you see wisp as ban worth I dont see static zapdos as ban worthy but for how many pokemon get T wave it really is impossible to scout all users and is in my mind the same as a sand attack that doesnt go away. Sorry you avoided your rant about scald but this whole topic of RNG I couldnt avoid my rant about T-Wave.
but so is GETTING the status effects on those moves. Pokemon is built around RNG, almost everything is affected by it (except for maybe stuff like sand storm damage and seismic toss)
I will say I haven't played since Gen 4 but Pokemon always felt like numbers to me, not hax. You get burnt 30% of the time, 3 out of 10 times +/- say 1 burn is reasonable. The game very plainly tells you how it all works
@@gregoryford2532 Which is the point: if we want to justify all the RNG, then we should judge a 100% winning plan to be better/more skillful than a 90% winning plan.
This is why every time I play 'competitive' pokemon, I am immediately reminded of why I gave up in the first place. I still say smogon needs to grow balls of steel and remove rng from showdown entirely. Gamefreak doesn't give a fuck about it because they're so rich they don't give a single fuck if their game sucks or not as everyone is a sucker for pokemon these days
Love it or hate it, the game is balanced around RNG. I wouldn't say it's balanced perfectly... or balanced particularly well... but it is important to consider why some moves have the accuracy values that they do. Moves like hydro pump and fire blast have extra power at the cost of potentially missing, but if we want to remove RNG, how would we change these moves? Do we reduce their power, causing them to miss the thresholds they needed to hit? Do we leave them as-is, making them strictly beter than surf and flamethrower? RNG is simply too deeply embedded in the game's design to simply remove outright, and the balance work that it would take to properly revalance everything would be enough that you may as well just make another game from the ground up. ...Speaking of other games, Temtem balances powerful moves through stamina, hold and priority. Essentially, powerful moves either have a high stamina cost, can't be used on turn 1 (or twice in a row,) or cause you to move slower that turn, which in turn gives more value to the weaker, cheaper moves.
@@emmetstanevich2121 balanced? Maybe but that doesn't make it competitive. How can you honestly say the better player won if every single turn is affected by randomness? I'm not talking about crits or miss but the random damage rolls. Competition is about the better player winning not the guy who got lucky in a key moment Gamefuck should just rework every single move and remove randomness entirely. The fact that strong moves like hydro pump or fire blast can be used fewer times than weaker moves like surf or flamethrower seems pretty blanaced to me because you can't spam them forever
because you can do something to minimize it. And being able to minimize reliance on luck is what makes a player consistent - to the extent possible within the framework of RNG.
I meet a lot of people that react funny when I tell them I play gen 1 because it is too haxy for them and made them quit. But like to me it is the true gambling optimization slot machine that pokemon is. Gen 1 crits in their "true" randomness are way more fun than z moves dynamaxes or teras.
While gen 1 had the most broken crit rates, it also had arguably the weakest iteration of critical hits due to them using the unmodified attack and defense stats, which means that critical hits don't benefit from attack boosts, and in fact deal less damage if you're at +3 or higher.
@@emmetstanevich2121 yeah true, I think that they should bring that back tbh. Wonderful job of making set up manageable, or at least less oppressive. Especially since faster threats got nerfed more with the varying crit rates.
You win the game of Pokémon by making the highest-percentage move the most amount of times & more than your opponent across a whole match. What separates the great players from the merely good players is knowing what the highest-percentage move is at any given time. If you want to win by pure strategy and execution just play chess
My idea is make all rates have 50% chance to guaranteed favor the too-date unluckier player. Though it would be a nightmare to add weight to degrees of relevance.
I hope the groovy use of a semicolon in the title sends someone on the fast train to boogietown
Oh no are you gosling?
You're so real for that
Very groovy
What is a semicolon?
You forgot to mention damage rolls on moves
I mean on every “damn, I’m lucky that scald didn’t burn there!” there’s an opponent saying “damn, didn’t get the burn there”
You only need two scalds to have more than 1/2 chance on burn.
As one of the old competitive players said in his retirement speech: "unfortunate" doesn't even begin to describe my series, this game rewards blind luck and nothing else.
Iconic
Still the greatest/funniest speech I've ever heard
Probably the single greatest pokemon copy pasta ever written
he didnt really care but he came on smogtours every 40 minutes to check the battke. very logical
he assumes i was fully aware of being in a losing position when ive never said that, and even then, being in a losing position isnt enough of a justification to forfeit a game. ive won tons of games where i was in a much more difficult situation but it didnt prevent me from ending up as the final the winner, it happened 2 years ago against bloo and it happened last year against cosine.
i also couldnt predict the battle would last for so long. i couldnt predict my opponent would start using timezones at his advantage and make the battle last forever and i couldnt predict tournament directors would do absolutely nothing about it despite the evident lack of sportmanship. if you have a win condition, you use it before turn 400, as someone said in this thread, and not at turn 1200 or whatever it was.
but anyway this post coming from the same guy whos still mad over me not wanting him on the italian team last year after he went 0-3 in 2015, it doesnt really hurt me. remember kids, when you lose, all the haters come back altogether.
i just used the word 'lose', and well id like to say something more about it.
i may be the loser of the battle. i most certainly am. but i dont think im the only loser from yesterdays game.
i think abr is a loser too for showing everyone how much pitiful his life is. you dont believe abr was intentionally trying to extend the game as long as he possibly could, and he was just doing it for the memes? well i think you should. but if you dont believe that, then you should be able to tell me why he didnt try to win with the sd skarmory at turn 200 instead of doing it at turn 1200. he pretty much sacrificed 6 hrs of his time just for the memes. i respect that a lot. it takes a lot of dedication. i dont know many people who would do that, especially with no gain. putting an online videogame ahead of your irl relationship, i will always respect that. or maybe he just didnt have anything better to do than sitting in front of his laptop for 7 hours. thats also an option
but the real loser from yesterday, it was neither me nor abr. it was you. it was the spectators. just wanted to get that out.
like i said something went wrong during my preparation for this olt, i probably should have asked myself some questions after i struggled to make playoffs for the 1st time ever, instead i just ignored this warning. ill be gone for a while but u can bet ill come back in great style
^im partial to this one personally
another point is damage rolls. Mons is full of rng all the time
Yeah definitely. Damage rolls can play into a game massively even though I generally don't even think about them lol.
"Using clickbait-style titles for interesting Pokemon discussion topics because they generate views" is my favorite BKC era thus far
They make me skip any other video honestly. 🤷🏽
these titles are exactly the same as the other ones, he just added “here’s why” for the views. not that serious
@@chrisdrums1910 Didn't say it was. It's a UA-cam marketing tactic that works, and it's clearly working for BKC based on the viewership of his latest videos. "Clickbait" isn't necessarily a negative term, though it generally carries that unfortunate connotation.
@@BensonMakesMusic i meant to reply to the other guy, my bad. i think it’s great he’s doing this. Exposing people to analytical and educational content is awesome
@@chrisdrums1910 Ah, you good, my bad all the same. 100% agreed - great stuff lately, a really cool look into some of Pokemon's more interesting ideas. Not to mention *daily videos*
a great man once told me this game rewards blind luck and nothing else…
Me.
A quote from the great Greek philosopher Blunderous, from the year 777 BC
people hate him because he speaks the truth, if you lose to hax, that mean you are not good enough to break through
For anyone curious, if a player attacks 20 times, they have a 72.5% chance to get at least 1 crit. Even accounting for all the turns spent switching or attacking with moves that do negligible damage, I would say the vast majority of games involve at least 20 attacks that matter. 2 players attacking this many times makes it ((15/16)^40) = 7.6%). You should realistically be getting a big crit and/or getting hit by a big crit in 13 out of every 14 games
This brings me back to Gen 4 OU where stone edge misses or crits, and it feels like there’s no in between.
And I have a suggestion BKC, showcasing BL Pokémon for a generation you favor (like ADV etc) and what kind of support they need to be viable and not be a hindrance. Or just build a few teams featuring them for fun, I like seeing the potential of some weaker Pokémon.
Hariyama!!
*Clap clap* *clap-clap-clap*
Hariyama!!
*Clap clap* *clap-clap-clap*
@@benjihuynh2970 is that Hariyama using Belly Drum?
@@CubeBizz you should have more thumbs up.
Great idea! It could use a catchy name though. Maybe something like... BL lords? BL soldiers? BL kn
Even in a "clean game" there's still damage rolls
Little tornadus will hit his hurricane someday
Unfortunate doesn't even begin to describe my luck with Hitting hurricanes
With this streak of uploads, now is my chance to ask BKC his take on The Night Is Short, Walk on Girl. Day 1
AMAZING movie!!! within 5 minutes I was grinning like an idiot. the sophist dance sends my heart soaring
I love belly drumming with Azumarill and then missing two 90% play roughs in a row!
This point resonates pretty hard with me as I've been getting back into playing with gen 1 ou and randoms. It's confidence boosting to know that, even if I don't have the foresight of a chess master or the knowledge of a professor, I can still good just by factoring in chance to my decisions around positioning.
Everybody remembers crits and flinches, nobody remembers ranges. Though I still stand by my point that if you can't play around luck, you're not a good player
Damage rolls are actually the thing that really can make me enraged. All the other rng is fine, but when you get that low roll in a crucial turn the feeling of robbery is too much.
One time I took 46 from a hydro on my scizor I already went for 1 swords dance and knew I couldn’t ko it with leftovers recovery I thought I could take the second hit then sweep then it did 64 and that was so upsetting I ended up losing that one too
All those near KOs on the game reminds me of an even more ubiquitous luck-based mechanic: damage rolls! Who's to say if any of those were close rolls, especially when softening a guy just enough for another mon, unless the person cries foul? The bias of just noticing it when it's a problem is even stronger with that
I saw the thumbnail and togekiss and something triggered in my brain
Your lucky it wasn't something actually fast like Shaymin Sky XD
I think an aspect that wasn’t touched on is rolls which means every move now has a chance to crit, high roll, and sometimes have a secondary effect. In the example game when Mamoswine earthquaked the Keldeo it was to my knowledge an 81.3% chance to KO with rocks which while keldeo only ended up being sack fodder if keldeo was ohko’d then maybe at another point in the game Monai could have claimed a more significant pokemon
I would love to hear more about your opinions on Bo3s (or potentially more matches than just 3)
Specific questions about it:
Does introducing more games encourage people to lean into variance? (Matchup fishing or high variance teams)
How many more games would be sufficient to reduce game variance?
What additional limitations that only apply across multiple games, such as which team of pokemon you bring, would alleviate variance instead of emphasizing it?
great questions. quick answer: it's easier to fish for matchup in bo1 because you only have to get it right once, and you have to nail said matchup in a certain game in bo3, making it much harder to pull off. bo5 in one tier has been tried before (ost 2016) and has generally been too exhausting, whereas bo3 has consistently been solid since it first started seeing use (2010).
ok but that means if you get haxed to hell and back and still win the opponent is legally required to delete their account
Alot of it has to do with a strong lack of control factors, tbh.
I have played Pokemon as long as it has been around and have also played both older monster collectors like Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest and newer monster collectors like Digimon and Yo-Kai Watch.
One thingI have noticed across many of these games is how much more control you have over things especially with their battle systems. You can reliably buff, increase the rate of or guarantee alot of things in all these games.
Granted, random crits and random misses still happen in those games but the system makes dealing with the inevitability far more forgiving. The usual 3v3 or 4v4 systems make it so you can defend and buff accuracy so the next time you can reliably connect a hit. You can increase your crit rate reliably or even guarantee crits if you set up, you can guarantee nasty status conditions (plenty that are WAY stronger than Toxic or Thunder Wave) but also clear them away more reliably and even if you lose a valuable teammate, you can revive them (tho that usually comes with a heavy MP cost).
With Pokemon's 1v1 system, alot of it is just whittling down their Rock-Paper-Scissors matchups with little control over the move even landing, so you either commit and pray or switch and THEN commit and pray.
This is why I like Wolfey. iirc he tends to acknowledge the rng that did and didn't happen, and he is very keen to find the one hax route to win in a "lost" game
i love BKC being the biggest gen 5 hater along with its biggest enthusiast
because he cares
I can say this - in one of the very few Pokemon Showdown games I've played, I only won because of a lucky Thunderbolt paralysis, and then the paralysis being full.
If you are playing a game where you and your opponent are constantly exchanging attacks back and forth, you are estimated to have seen a crit by Turn 8, or Turn 12 in Gen 7+.
By those statistics, a game without any crits is in and of itself an anomaly.
I can’t wait for the “here’s how” arc
Would love to see you make a video on the "bo3 vs bo1" debate! It's wild to me that bo1 is still used at all.
I've played a lot of card games over the years, including hearthstone which has BONKERS rng, and the communities in those games are VERY aware of this. what makes you an exceptional player in those games is making your strategy as consistent as possible and playing in a way that maximizes your odds.
as a ygo fan i agree
This is something pokeaim’s pretty good at. Dude will get crit by like a fakeout or something and start talking about all the moves he’s in range to get killed by at max roll, with exact percentages and everything. Man’s nuts 😂
ugh
Rng in Pokemon I think is a good thing, precisely because it doesn't make certain outcomes definitive. I think it encourages on-the-fly decision making & encourages plays to minimize potential risk.
Sorry about the completely unrelated question to the video, I just heard you talking about Alakazam not getting crit by Tentacruel Spin and. It being put into range of Banded Shard by Mamoswine and it got me thinking, does Zam ever switch into Scald or Toxic to avoid Thunder Wave from mons like Reuniclus, Ferrothorn, or the extraordinarily rate Blissey/Chansey?
This is why Covert Cloak is such an interesting item. Removing secondary effects does so much for consistency. It's common in the cart 3v3 metagame just to make something like switching in on Flutter Mane sball not have to risk that spdef drop, or flinches from dark pulse hydreigon etc. I expect the opportunity cost in current gen ou is too high for its usage to be common though, competing with boots and such
Doesn't remove crits and rolls though
Cloak is definitely a thing on salt cure weak mons,if we get scald back for some reason in home,cloak is definitely seeing way more use
Every time anybody uses a non-set damaging move, RNG comes into play with damage rolls, whether it crits or not. It's not just a matter of "does secondary effect proc/did attack crit?" when a max damage roll can do ~15% more damage than a minimum damage roll.
Ok the semicolon legit pissed me off this time
RNG can be so rage-inducing, it can cause someone to become verbose with salt.
That's why ladder is good, because it rewards the best players for playing good for hundreds of battles. Tournaments, especially BO1 (BO3 lessens the effect of luck but it can still happen) just rewards the luckiest most of the time.
Something I would really appreciate, as someone not at all versed with the culture of competitive pokemon, is a thorough explanation of the term "hax". I've picked up on a sense of it, but I suspect there's a deeper understanding to be had
@@gregoryford2532 The etymology is fairly obvious, but the way BKC talks about "small hax", "big hax", "that's not hax; it's rng" etc. suggests to me that there's quite a lot of nuance that's going over my head
In this case, hax, I guess, refers to events that not only should not happen, but also refers to unlikely game-changing events of luck.
Thus the statement of distinguishing between RNG and hax (in this case, RNG is being used synonymously with variance instead of luck) and big hax and small hax (which imply a crit and a secondary effect on a Pokémon that would not want statuses, or even a crit against a Pokémon that otherwise would have swept.)
People might disagree with this, but the rng is pretty much half of what makes Pokemon so fun. Playing around people is half of it, but adapting to different situations that come up because of the rng, and trying to account for all of the potential rng is part of it too. That's also why evasion is so frustrating - there's nothing to play around or agency on your part. When you click focus blast, it's a choice (well metagame stuff might force it blah blah) but when they click minimize, there's no part of that you chose. Maybe if moves that never miss didn't have such terrible power it'd be more reasonable to play around but as is it's stupid.
Game freak should still definitely put in a better special fighting move than aura sphere that's not 70% accurate
I've experimented with 100% accuracy teams on ladder in the tiers I like to play, do you think such a style of team could be tournament viable? I feel like there has to be at least a couple possible teams in every tier that happens to have 100% accuracy moves across the board, that are viable. Because there are so many good potential sets out there...? I know this constraint trims off a LOT
This is basically the ancient Surf vs Hydro Pump debate.
It's situational. Someone using Fire Blast over your Flamethrower is going to automatically have a tempo advantage over you during neutral exchanges as they'll get more out of their Fire Blast on average (110*.85) than you will with Flamethrower. That's not to mention the importance of hitting 2HKOs over 3-4HKOs on important threats. Especially since a lot of those 2HKOs work off of chip and hazard damage, which high power moves will build up much more quickly due to both threat and direct damage.
If you can find ways to work around this or compensate for it directly (hazards) then your idea could have some viability.
I basically do run only 100% accuracy moves (except for status) because I hate missing attacks that much. It's a good OU team and you wouldn't miss another move (pun intended) looking at it.
@@enoyna1001 yeah eventually I had to make an exception specifically for Toxic lol
the second you click a move that isn't 100% accurate, hax is involved, whether that be you hitting or missing with each instance
What if the mamo got the roll on keldeo in the first couple turns?
I think Pokémon is similar to poker. You put yourself in a position with building battling and making plays to have the highest percentage outcome. If u lose on a 90% draco I’ll take that because over 1000 games in that same scenario I’ll win 900 times.
Same with poker you could be all but locked up but the only card in the deck that fucks you shows up at the end. You live with the consequences knowing that math is on your side
hey i remember ciel from the old days playing monotype on main or on frost
The probability of everything going so smoothly up to turn 17 was 0.193. The game so far; which was referred to as ‘clean’ and not containing much rng, was in fact a game with quite uncommon rng.
Compare this to a game where a hydro punch misses turn one on a switch. A lot of people would say it was unfortunate, even though the two comparisons have a similar chance.
i know it’s been tried before but a meta where crits and accuracy were multiplied by hit chance to remove luck would be kinda neat to see.
Competitive Pokemon has an element of luck involved in it depending on certain effects of moves and the chances of a critical hit but don't forget
They got brightpowder and king's rock banned
They can't really ban thunderbolt and ice beam LOL
There’s healthy luck and unhealthy luck. If you are using an item purely for the chance your opponent missing or not being able to move then it’s not healthy and degenerate
@@isaiahmcgirt5832 it wasn't the first time that I encountered the effects of quick claw or even focus band happening multiple times (lol Battle Frontier) but these items have only like what, 20% chances of their intended effects occurring, or possibly even less than that.
The metagame allows moves like Iron Head and Air Slash which combined with Serene Grace double their chances of a luck based effect, which go as high as 60% (lol Body Slam) but it's the player's job to figure out plans for these scenarios when the unexpected situations occur.
So are the 20% chance of the effects of BrightPowder or King's Rock (if using Brightpowder I dunno if you multiply evasion for Garchomp by 0.8 or just add 20% extra) significant enough that its utilization as an item supersedes items that are more valuable and consistent such as Berries and even choice items?
You can even have scenarios such as Hydro Pump and even Fire Blast missing twice and the odds for that are staggeringly low but if it happens, it's still on the player that missed to deal with the battle scenario that happened as a result of those misses.
Won't argue too hard about this though. I'm just glad that recent suspect test turned out the way they did with Walking Wake.
@@isaiahmcgirt5832 yeah, even if it's nice to freeze the opponent, you're mainly bringing ice beam for its coverage. If you're using bright powder, it's only for the small miss chance, and I believe king's rock got banned due to its interaction with multi-hit moves.
"In RBY, we call it luck when your opponent does NOT get a critical hit." - Hipmonlee
I know that's RBY they're talking about, but I feel like having that mentality in any gen helps.
There's another way in which luck pops up that a lot of players neglect: prediction.
This is a controversial because players like to think of prediction as a skill, and sometimes it can be. Against a weaker opponent who's very predictable, it is. But when both players are playing optimally it really does come down to a coin flip.
Let's look at a clean example. Player 1 has a bisharp at 50% with sucker punch and knock off. Player 2 has a Garchomp at 10% with swords dance and earthquake. All other Pokemon are fainted. There is a clean nash equilibrium in this instance. The nash strategy for the bisharp player is to use sucker punch with probability n/(n+1) and knock off with probability 1/(n+1) where n is the number of pp sucker punch has left. If the bisharp player uses this strategy they will always win with probability n/(n+1) no matter what the Garchomp player does and when the Garchomp player does happen to win it won't be because of skill, it will just mean they got lucky. It's a different kind of luck than a move missing but it's still luck
You’re right that people put a magnifying glass over one part of the game to make it look more significant than it really is and if you play many games of Pokémon then you will not be outside the mean level of hax. I remember that one poketuber that does the battle tower on emerald got mad at me because I corrected his interpretation of the rng that happened during one of his streaks. He had a pure hax gengar as his last mon and had to kill an already cursed up registeel because he got unlucky with something. He then started calculating the odds of the exact string of outcomes happening and then said the chance of him winning that fight was one in billions but he fundamentally didn’t understand what he was calculating or the meaning behind it. What he did would be like throwing a dart out of an airplane and then finding it and saying “holy shit guys the chance this blade of grass would be hit is like less than life emerging from non life!” You aren’t making any meaningful statements about chance when you do stuff like that. What he was really looking for was P(success) in which his gengar beat the registeel and with hypnosis and confuse ray it was more like a 50/50 to beat him rather than one in billions. People just don’t understand statistics or how or what they are trying to measure with them.
Turn 4 you shouldn't see a 1/16 event but if you're looking at an event where you play thousands of turns you should expect crits regularly about every 10-20 turns
This vid reminds me of the ice beam freeze spam team BKC made once in ADV
When Joey started the Embrace The Hax trend (may it rest in pieces), he did implicitly bring up the fair point that this (meta)game is balanced around non-100% attack moves, that can crit, miss or have secondary effects and these things should or at least could happen in every other game.
ugh
Not sure how much it matters to other people, but I much prefer the older video titles over adding "here's why" at the end of everything and changing the part before that to accommodate this addition.
"I prefer the older video titles over the new ones; here's why."
Let's say you click Fire Blast. You can 1) miss, 2) crit, 3) burn, 4) high/low roll. This game is little more than one big RNG fiesta.
can you make video about the lavos monologue? xD
Who cares about Pokemon, all I wanna know is what is BKC's favourite French New Wave movie.
I like the idea that when team building, you have to take into account the safety of a team. Something like a Keldeo knowing either secret sword or focus blast forces the player to consider the risks involved with their team. Or if a team is heavily physical and susceptible to burns, having a heal bell/aromatherapy mon can counteract that risk.
"Unfortunate" doesn't even
I've had people rage at me for RNG when I've gone for like 44% odds stuff. Yeah I flinch-crit with Rock Slide Aerodactyl, winning still wasn't unlikely against stuff that didn't immediately KO back.
Maybe you made this point in the video already (didn't have time to fully watch) but part of this is the human mind's bias with probability. If we miss a 90% accuracy move we feel cheated, because in our minds, 90 is a near-guaranteed hit and not getting it is bad luck on the level of losing 5 consecutive coin flips. The same applies to getting hit by a 30 accuracy move. The Fire Emblem games actually changed their RNG system to make the luck "feel right", making attacks with over 50 accuracy far more likely to hit (roll 2d100 and if EITHER is below the accuracy number then it lands) and below 50 accuracy moves much less accurate (roll 2d100 and BOTH need to be under the accuracy number).
He did it again!
Enjoying this semicolon bit
Pokemon is not a game of nailing every hit and relying on "guaranteed wins" or every roll in your favor. It's about having managing risk, having escape plans, improvising and adapting, and taking the advantage when you can.
The rng doesn't make the game worse, it makes it better. The best players are not the ones with better rng, but the ones who win despite bad luck.
While I generally agree with most of your point, I don't agree that RNG makes the game better. All of the concepts you mention, luck included, exist within most complex games played against a human opponent.
There are valid reasons why Gamefreak decided to add RNG into a game like Pokemon but none of were done for competitive purposes. Competitively, I think RNG just bogs down the experience by adding more variance to the already high amount of natural variance.
all of this is indeed obvious but it bears repeating because people love whining and hate understanding probability. rng management is a skill.
Ok but luck is a skill
In a way yes but in Pokemon there is so much variance like bkc describes that it can not be managed
Unironically agree. Also the management of factoring luck is a skill.
In better designed RPGs where Luck is a stat you can raise, yes.
having the world champ difference certainly helps as well
In fire emblem, luck is a stat.
Pokémon is not a competitive game
You can play it competitively. But it’s still impossible with rolls, status, missing, and crits.
and that changes what?
@@IschmarVIi think he meant the game wasn't designed to be competitive...which let's be honest, it's not, things like evasion clause, sleep clause and many other things that were created to make the competitive more "bearable" aren't actually into the game. Is just like saying the casual mode of pokemon is hard when you played the game with a bunch of rules that you implemented, like nuzlockes.
It’s been too long since the last gen 5 OU video
You should like this video; here's why
As someone who can still get salty when missing a Hydro, I have to say, I wouldn't enjoy Pokémon as much as I do if not for RNG. It adds so much flare to this unique strategy game like nothing else.
My favourite is playing gen1 randbats and have people complain about hax
Switch predictions are also a form of luck
When are we going talk about thunderwave? Moody bad cause promotes RNG playstyle, Sleep bad cause RNG playstyle, Evasion Bad cause RNG, how is T-Wave not on that list? I put T-Wave on a spd wall Pair it with two physical walls and when mega mawile switches in on chancey cause you HAVE to cause your gren or whatever is just going waste pp and boom all of sudden your mawile is paralyzed, out speed by every physical wall mawile needs to break later, and even thou you packed t-punch for skarmory or you ran speed to out speed hippo all of a sudden you will have to deal with skarmory being able to roost off the t-punch super effective, you will have to eat a eq from hippo and on top of that there is a 30 precent chance that rng will make you eat two eqs or get whirlwind out with out even touching skarmory. Zygrade was banned cause glare and sub tell para, a pure rng playstlye which in gen 7 serp also does. How is T-wave not seen as better then double team? Like I double team scizior or whatever on a switch in which gives them a chance to miss, how is me clicking T-wave different? Not only does it still gives them a chance to not deal damage but it cuts speed is cut in half so I can U-turn out risk free and later on they will still be paralyzed, If i switch out after double teaming or if they switch out after sand attack, that goes away. The only real counter is you pack heal bell or only switch Starmie in on T-Wave users it is going stick even after switching out. Like I get why you hate scald I main Gen7 but I can not get my head around why T-wave is not seen as ban worthy. In your example of t-tar switches in on latios I have seen Tar switch in on T-wave latios and all of a sudden that rain teams mamoswine just wins, that is if latios doesnt win cause its self off a lucky para turn. I would love a video on your thoughts on T-wave and just that move like you and scald I dont think you see wisp as ban worth I dont see static zapdos as ban worthy but for how many pokemon get T wave it really is impossible to scout all users and is in my mind the same as a sand attack that doesnt go away. Sorry you avoided your rant about scald but this whole topic of RNG I couldnt avoid my rant about T-Wave.
many OMs have attempted to neuter para in some way
i'm glad nuzzle is on mostly bad pokemon😂
i thnk scald should be like thunder on acc for having 30% to burn
I almost feel like using Scald repetitively or Body Slam repetitively and NOT getting burns or paralysis is hax. That's just me anyway
but so is GETTING the status effects on those moves. Pokemon is built around RNG, almost everything is affected by it (except for maybe stuff like sand storm damage and seismic toss)
I hope u have a good day / night
And this didn't even mention getting high or low rolls with every attack. :')
How does the concept of luck apply to non 6v6 metagames tho
Damage rolls
in the exact same way.
I only play randoms really so I am all to familiar with luck as a factor
Play gen 3 randoms, I wanna see some new faces in there!
I will say I haven't played since Gen 4 but Pokemon always felt like numbers to me, not hax. You get burnt 30% of the time, 3 out of 10 times +/- say 1 burn is reasonable. The game very plainly tells you how it all works
Essentially, you can make a plan to win 90% of the time, but making a plan that wins 100% of the time should be rewarded more, right?
@@gregoryford2532 Which is the point: if we want to justify all the RNG, then we should judge a 100% winning plan to be better/more skillful than a 90% winning plan.
yes
@@aceattorneynegativeharmony7114which dorsn't exist, since rng would never allow a 100% victory chance to be reliable.
This is why every time I play 'competitive' pokemon, I am immediately reminded of why I gave up in the first place. I still say smogon needs to grow balls of steel and remove rng from showdown entirely. Gamefreak doesn't give a fuck about it because they're so rich they don't give a single fuck if their game sucks or not as everyone is a sucker for pokemon these days
Love it or hate it, the game is balanced around RNG. I wouldn't say it's balanced perfectly... or balanced particularly well... but it is important to consider why some moves have the accuracy values that they do. Moves like hydro pump and fire blast have extra power at the cost of potentially missing, but if we want to remove RNG, how would we change these moves? Do we reduce their power, causing them to miss the thresholds they needed to hit? Do we leave them as-is, making them strictly beter than surf and flamethrower?
RNG is simply too deeply embedded in the game's design to simply remove outright, and the balance work that it would take to properly revalance everything would be enough that you may as well just make another game from the ground up.
...Speaking of other games, Temtem balances powerful moves through stamina, hold and priority. Essentially, powerful moves either have a high stamina cost, can't be used on turn 1 (or twice in a row,) or cause you to move slower that turn, which in turn gives more value to the weaker, cheaper moves.
@@emmetstanevich2121 balanced? Maybe but that doesn't make it competitive. How can you honestly say the better player won if every single turn is affected by randomness? I'm not talking about crits or miss but the random damage rolls. Competition is about the better player winning not the guy who got lucky in a key moment
Gamefuck should just rework every single move and remove randomness entirely. The fact that strong moves like hydro pump or fire blast can be used fewer times than weaker moves like surf or flamethrower seems pretty blanaced to me because you can't spam them forever
wat
Maybe I'm biased but it seems like most of the good luck goes to my opponents. The 10% status feels like 40%
you are affected by something called "confirmation bias".
Why would you think about it when you can do literally nothing to completely negate it
because you can do something to minimize it. And being able to minimize reliance on luck is what makes a player consistent - to the extent possible within the framework of RNG.
I meet a lot of people that react funny when I tell them I play gen 1 because it is too haxy for them and made them quit.
But like to me it is the true gambling optimization slot machine that pokemon is.
Gen 1 crits in their "true" randomness are way more fun than z moves dynamaxes or teras.
While gen 1 had the most broken crit rates, it also had arguably the weakest iteration of critical hits due to them using the unmodified attack and defense stats, which means that critical hits don't benefit from attack boosts, and in fact deal less damage if you're at +3 or higher.
@@emmetstanevich2121 yeah true, I think that they should bring that back tbh.
Wonderful job of making set up manageable, or at least less oppressive. Especially since faster threats got nerfed more with the varying crit rates.
I wish showdown tracked all registered users and calculated the luckiest and unluckiest players, lol. W/ a top 10
You win the game of Pokémon by making the highest-percentage move the most amount of times & more than your opponent across a whole match. What separates the great players from the merely good players is knowing what the highest-percentage move is at any given time. If you want to win by pure strategy and execution just play chess
My idea is make all rates have 50% chance to guaranteed favor the too-date unluckier player. Though it would be a nightmare to add weight to degrees of relevance.
Please stop with the semi colon it’s starting to hurt my eyes