>switching on a predicted Protect causes the Protect to fail,

>>28497448
>Would Protect be a more rewarding move to counter if it didn't fail on the switch?
Yes, obviously.
I prefer it the way it is, but counting the protect would make more sense.

>>28497502
Eh, I should have added a "Yes, it would, but should it be?"

>I prefer it the way it is
Why? Honest question. I think being able to predict and punish a protect would raise the skill ceiling, which is always a good thing, especially since it does not raise the skill floor. It'd also tilt the general playstyle a bit away from stall towards offense, I think.

It'd make more sense but shouldn't happen because VGC players would actually have to think when playing.

>>28497923
Well that and what do when 1 person protects, but not the other

>>28497983
>what do when 1 person protects, but not the other
What then? The Protect activates as usual, I don't see the problem.