Who was right, /vp/?

>>32913213
Verlisify

>>32913219
Fpbp

>>32913213
Alder, its up to the trainer to decide which method is more enjoyable for them, and neither is more right nor wrong.

>>32913213
>Game Freak finally acknowledges that their dumb gameplay mechanics and stat distributions fucked up with the "every pokemon is special and viable" moral from the plot

>>32913213
Karen is objectively wrong since stats exist.

>>32913213
Me

>>32913228
This

Karen for casual play. Other guy for competitive.

>>32913213
>should try to win with their favorites
>should try to
>try to
reading is hard, in no way did she say using your favorites will make you win, but people are fucking dumb.

also the Gentleman is right fuck you all.

File: Sun_Moon_Grimsley.png (439KB, 305x644px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 305x644px

>>32913213
Grimsley was
>"Life is a serious battle, and you have to use the tools you're given. It's more important to master the cards you're holding than to complain about the ones your opponents were dealt. Let us begin. And may the best Trainer win! Contests like this are proof that you are really living..."

Basically it means "use whatever the fuck you want and don't cry when you lose"

>>32913495
>Basically it means "use whatever the fuck you want and don't cry when you lose"
No, it means "Don't bitch about the shit you get in the Battle Factory"

>>32913510
As far as the facilities go the factory is one of the least worst, the Battle Frontier will always be overrated trash

>>32913306
This

>pokemon
>competitive
When will this meme end? If a handful of characters are much better than everyone else and the game uses obscene amounts of RNG then it cannot be a competitive game.

>>32913549
Mario Party can be competitive. It'd be fucking retarded, but it can.

>>32913549
>it cannot be a competitive game
If people are willing to watch it, and play it at high enough levels, as well as some form of organized competition can be arranged with these two factors, then it can be a competitive game. Pokemon meets all of these conditions, specially so for the RNG giving variability the power gaps between pokemon lack.

>>32913213
Karen, because tits

>>32913567
I would enjoy competitive Mario party team tournaments

Unironically

>>32913549
>If a handful of characters are much better than everyone else
Literally how every competitive videogame works.

>and the game uses obscene amounts of RNG
No, Pokemon does not rely exclusively on RNG. Players can make choices (between one of 4 moves, or switching to one of 5 other Pokemon) and RNG only works as a VERY small effect on the move, as the chance of a critical, and as the chance of a secondary effect.

>>32913576
>If a dog shits in the stable then it's a horse

>>32913594
>RNG only works as a VERY small effect
But this isn't true

>>32913595
You can whine all you want, but VGC won't stop being a thing because of it.

Pokemon usually don't become true favorites for me until I actually use them and when they just werk

>>32913594
>Literally how every competitive videogame works.
CS:S

>No, Pokemon does not rely exclusively on RNG
Never said it did, I said it uses obscene amouts of it, which is true.
>RNG only works as a VERY small effect on the move, as the chance of a critical, and as the chance of a secondary effect.
So it works on 90% of all gameplay aspects. Ok.

>>32913605
I'm not whining, I'm just saying that pokemon isn't a competitive game. Whether you waste your time watching people play RNG: The Game or not doesn't affect me in the slightest.

>>32913306
Actually, I use my favorite mons competitively and win all the time.

I've always loved M-Sableye, Chansey, Toxapex, Clefable, Skarmory and Dugtrio ;)

>>32913603
Complete the sentence you massive faggot. It IS a very small effect on the final damage, compared to what you will actually deal.

>>32913609
>CS:S
It's not comparable. Pokemon is more akin to a tabletop game where dice rolling are a factor. Haven't you played one?

>Never said it did, I said it uses obscene amouts of it, which is true.
I'm telling you that isn't true.

>So it works on 90% of all gameplay aspects. Ok.
No? RNG does not remove your agency. Monopoly is a game that outright depends on RNG. Pokemon is not.

>>32913616
>are a factor
is* a factor
Fuck I'm sleepy

File: 1473621852301.png (118KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 800x600px

>>32913612
You'd be wrong inn making that assertion, since it is. The qualifications for a competitive game are quite lose and have been described before, as long as people are willing to watch it, people spend effort to play it at a higher level of skill, and these two further allow an organized event in which it is played, then it is, by definition, a competitive game.

Sorry you don't want to see it like that, but that's how it is. You might have a personal interpretation of what a competitive game should be, with perfect balance relying solely on skill, but that doesn't affect the fact Pokemon is, in part like many other games, a competitive game too.

>>32913616
>It's not comparable
kek it's THE competitive game. If you're gonna say your game's competitive you bet your ass someone will compare it to CS.

>Pokemon is more akin to a tabletop game
And tabletop games cannot be competitive due to the huge amount of RNG they rely on.

>I'm telling you that isn't true.
Like you said it plays a part in move effects, critical hits and status effects. That's a huge part of multiplayer battles.
>No? RNG does not remove your agency.
"X cannot move because of Y"
"X flinched"
"X hurt itself because of W"
:^)

>>32913628
>The qualifications for a competitive game are quite lose and have been described before, as long as people are willing to watch it, people spend effort to play it at a higher level of skill, and these two further allow an organized event in which it is played, then it is, by definition, a competitive game.
Like I said, you can hold competitions for a game. Doesn't mean it's a competitive game.

>>32913219
kek

>>32913646
>you can hold competitions for a game. Doesn't mean it's a competitive game.
that is a contradictory statement.

>>32913646
>kek it's THE competitive game. If you're gonna say your game's competitive you bet your ass someone will compare it to CS.
>Being literally this much of a faggot
No because of two reasons.

>Pokemon is not a FPS
>Chess is actually THE competitive game

You were trying to make a point but comparing competitive games to CS like it was the holy grail of competitive videogames is not helping your case.

>"X cannot move because of Y"
Switch?

>"X flinched"
Fake Out is a strategic move. If you cannot predict a Fake Out you're clearly a sub-1300 shitter. The rest of the moves that randomly flinch aren't reliable or good enough. Hell, flinch strategies haven't been good since one or two generations ago.

>"X hurt itself because of W"
Switch? You can predict that one.

Your opponent forcing you to play in certain ways IS a valid way to play. That's how competition works.

@Verliswolf

>>32913667
>Chess is actually THE competitive game
Chess isn't a video game.
>>Pokemon is not a FPS
No, it's an RPG and RPGs cannot be competitive by nature.

>Switch?
>RNG isn't a thing since you can switch :^)
The RNG will still be there when the pokemon comes back.

>The rest of the moves that randomly flinch aren't reliable or good enough.
They still rely on RNG

Man that sure is a lot on RNG for a competitive game.

>>32913682
>Chess isn't a video game.
No but it's a game. You clearly lack world view, I encourage you to play other games that aren't videogames.

What I'm trying to say is, you're selling CS as the pinnacle of competitive videogames. Even while others may agree, there is no point of comparison at all because of their differing natures. You cannot say CS is the point where you should be comparing games, because it's clearly not.

>No, it's an RPG and RPGs cannot be competitive by nature.
Pokemon has demonstrated otherwise because the game was designed in a way it allows for competition to happen - which, let me tell you, is a big undertaking on RPGs.

>The RNG will still be there when the pokemon comes back.
But it does not remove your agency entirely. At most it reduces your options, which again it's valid because that's literally how competition happens.

>They still rely on RNG
You're not getting the message across.

RANDOM CHANCE IN A GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS COMPETITIVE.

Look at all the card games (including the playing card games such as poker). Competitions with huge prizes happen every single game. And they work at a fundamentally random nature: shuffle the cards so that they are ordered randomly.

Catan is a board game with a big competitive scenario, and one of its basic mechanics require rolling two six-sided dice.

Do I need to keep going to make my point clear?

>>32913705
Yes is pretty clear you are retard
Remove the 10% ~30% freeze,burn,paralysis,miss,flinch,critics etc and maybe we will talk about competitive
Competitive videogames are a joke anyways

>>32913567
>>32913593
Considering the current competitive scene a Mario Party branch would most likely end in murders

>>32913729
>Insulting the other person arguing and the argument itself
Thanks for useless input, have a good day.

>>32913705
>you're selling CS as the pinnacle of competitive videogames
It is.
>Even while others may agree
Because they know I'm right.

>there is no point of comparison at all because of their differing natures.
Sure there is.

>You cannot say CS is the point where you should be comparing games, because it's clearly not.
It clearly is since it's a purely competitive game by nature.

>Pokemon has demonstrated otherwise because the game was designed in a way it allows for competition to happen
False, if it was design with competition in mind then all fully evolved pokemon would be viable one way or another.

>But it does not remove your agency entirely
First it didn't remove your agency now it's it doesn't remove your agency entirely :^)

>RANDOM CHANCE IN A GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS COMPETITIVE.
What the fuck am I reading?
"There's chance that this new player could one shot every single one of his opponents pokemon with horn drill but this game is totally competitive!!!"

>>32913734
thank for the nonargument I guess

>>32913735
>CS is the pinnacle of competitive videogames
10/10 learn basic spray patterns pinnacle of human ingenuity and innovation

CS is trash that's only popular because it's a combination of old and borderline braindead gameplay

Pokemon isn't competitive though

>>32913667
>Fake Out is a strategic move. If you cannot predict a Fake Out you're clearly a sub-1300 shitter. The rest of the moves that randomly flinch aren't reliable or good enough. Hell, flinch strategies haven't been good since one or two generations ago.

if you watched the Indianapolis internationals literally yesterday you'd eat that bullshit you spewed right away. Paul chua's whole game plan in the top8 third game was literally click rockslide on scarfchomp and hope for the best, and lo and behold, he's now in top4. Same goes for very infamous matches like Ryosuke vs Cybertron in 2013 or the worlds finals in 2015.
RNG and rng-based moves are a HUGE part of pokemon and good players know how to make the odds be in their favour. Trying to downplay its relevance is just delusional.

Having said that, randomness and luck don't necessarily mean a game is outright bad or uncompetitive. If people manage to be consistently good at fucking POKER I don't see why Pokemon can't be a competitive game. A lot of card games like MTG or YGO in which luck plays just as much of a factor have lots of players and tournaments around the world.

>>32913735
>Because they know I'm right.
>BECAUSE I SAY SO
Er, no.

>Sure there is.
Tell me how you can compare a turn based, chess-like game in nature (every turn you must make a single decision) to a game where quick reflexes are the norm.

>False, if it was design with competition in mind then all fully evolved pokemon would be viable one way or another.
But that's a fallacy. All fully evolved Pokemon being "viable" (however you measure that) is not a requirement for the game to be competitive. I don't see how both are related, a game being competitive doesn't mean that all choices are equally valid.

>First it didn't remove your agency now it's it doesn't remove your agency entirely :^)
Yeah? I'm not contradicting myself.

I'm gonna give you a familiar example.

>Some player in CS chases another player
>The other player is forced to stay in a corner because the other player chased them
>Now that player has reduced agency - there are now choices that will hinder them
Do you even game theory?

>"There's chance that this new player could one shot every single one of his opponents pokemon with horn drill but this game is totally competitive!!!"
Yes, but under a game theory point of view we have this:

>This new player has a 30% chance to one shot one of my Pokemon
>That player also has 0.3^6 = 0.000729 = 0.0729% to one-shot every single Pokemon in my team
>I, however, have a 90.5% chance to one shot that single Pokemon with the right choice
Pokemon is a game of chances. Of taking the most optimal choice. Of taking calculated risks. Because if you knew anything about chance, you'd know that trying to OHKO every single of your opponent's Pokemon is not a viable strategy on the long run, especially if you're intending to escalate in the ladder or win tournaments.

Oh and if one of your opponent's Pokemon also has Sturdy your chance to one-shot every single of your opponent's Pokemon drops to zero.

>>32913744
Says the one who responded with a fallacy.

>>32913770
>good players know how to make the odds be in their favour
Precisely what I said in my last post

>Pokemon is a game of chances. Of taking the most optimal choice. Of taking calculated risks.

Because flinching with Rock Slide can be risky if somehow you end up NOT flinching in a consistent manner, or your opponent outplays you.

But if you know how to play your cards you can reduce such risks.

>>32913776
And to top my argument.

A game can be said to be more competitive if good players manage to stay consistently good. This also means that if in a game with players of differing skills everyone has roughly the same chances to win, then THAT is not very competitive. But if the better players (those with better skills) manage to consistently outplay worse players (this does not mean they will always win - it means they win a considerably higher amount of times), then the game is more competitive.

>>32913735
>False, if it was design with competition in mind then all fully evolved pokemon would be viable one way or another.
they are. There is no fully evolved mon that does exactly everything another does but better in every single aspect. Of course the majority of pokemon only work in extremely niche scenarios and thus are relatively snubbed in a context where consistency and adaptability are essential, but if there were ~300 options all equally versatile and strong then the game would be a complete mess and matches would become even more of a glorified rock-paper-scissors shitfest than they are now.


The problem with pokemon as a competitive game is that at its core the competitive aspects tend to go against the main fundamentals of the series. You "gotta catch'em all" but you shouldn't consider more than say 50 of them; you should treat them with care and love but players often use Frustration instead of Return because it's faster to maximize; not to mention all the hacking and injecting that goes on to skip breeding and training and maximize practice time.

>>32913773
>>This new player has a 30% chance to one shot one of my Pokemon
>>That player also has 0.3^6 = 0.000729 = 0.0729% to one-shot every single Pokemon in my team
>>I, however, have a 90.5% chance to one shot that single Pokemon with the right choice
That's an awful lot of RNG for a competitive game.

>>32913776
you're right on that, but hax strategies are definitely a viable backup plan and far from a shitty noob gimmick. Thank god for Tapu Fini or we'd still be dealing with Swagger all day every day.

>>32913213
>*tips fedora*
says it all

>>32913789
Come back once you understand game theory.

>>32913793
"Viable backup plan" does not sound like "consistent main plan". It means that playing such backup plans require, well, planning them properly and knowing when you absolutely must resort to them, because they require taking calculated chances.

>>32913798
>game theory
I don't watch shitty youtubers.

>>32913800
>shitty youtubers
Thanks for the laugh, I really needed it.

FYI, game theory is not a shitty youtube channel. It's a set of mathematical models that represent conflict and cooperation. Something you clearly don't know anything about.

>>32913804
>FYI, game theory is not a shitty youtube channel
Every single one of your opinions has been discarded.

>>32913773
>I...Its not luck, Its just percentage
>My game is competitive wahhh!!!
Loving each second anon

>>32913811
>I'm an uneducated retard
Discard shit once you know what you're talking about.

>>32913813
I never said it's not luck. Hell I'm saying that a game where luck is a factor can be competitive and that both aren't mutually exclusive.

If you think they are you can very well dismiss Poker as a competitive game.

>>32913817
I'm not the one who watches normie tier shit. But hey it's just a theory a __fuck you__

>>32913828
Fuck dude, I'm not talking about a YouTube channel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Now fuck off.

>>32913817
>I'm saying that a game where luck is a factor can be competitive
We can´t be friends

>>32913832
Sure you don't :^)

>>32913832
You realize he's been baiting from the moment you said "it's not a shitty yt channel", right?

>>32913838
Okay, I'll go to a corner and cry you a river.

>>32913847
>Look mom, I'm shitposting!
Pathetic.

>>32913851
I was more hopeful. I made a mistake.

>>32913820
>year of our lord 1000*2 + 17
>people STILL citing Sejun as a Karenfag model

If you heard him talk about it you'd know he didn't choose it because it was a favourite of his. It was a really clever meta call in an extremely restricted environment that just happened to be a cute mascot.

>>32913495
>>32913513
>quotes patrician tier character
>posts it with its shit redesign anyway
>not enough shitposting so complains about great gameplay additions as well
Stop posting anytime

>>32913228
/thread

>>32913902
>great gameplay additions
Playing Russian roulette with RNG is not fun, doesn't justify GF being lazy but I will never find the Frontier appealing and I don't get why people get mad when its absent

>>32913925
Because when you lose it's because you got screwed by the rng, not because you were bad.

>>32913925
>saying the Frontier is ridden with RNG
>when RNG abuse didn't start until the Maison
There's only two reasons you would claim this:
1. Never played the frontier
2. You're a shitter
Git gud

>>32913937
>>32913934
what is Battle Palace, what is Battle Pike?

>>32913949
>2 (TWO) battle facilities out of 10
>where only one of them is based entirely on RNG and even then you can make sets that work in your favor, the other is one of the easiest facilities and luck hardly affects you even when it's not in your favor
You played yourself. Never tried it

>>32913977
>out of 10
>10
dude what

>>32913213
The one that isn't a generic NPC

>>32913213
How is being "reasonable" gonna benefit someone who doesn't touch Pokemon's MP?

>>32914024
Dome / Palace / Pyramid / Pike / Arena / Tower / Factory / Castle / Arcade / Hall
Fucking play the games.

>>32913237
>every pokemon is special and viable
I hope next gens gimmick is based on this. It's not fun to only use megas for special snowflake moves. I like z moves more because every Pokémon can use them

>>32913248
She isn't. The joy of battling with your favorites can have the same value as battling competitive.

>>32913595
this analogy is fucking stupid

>>32915252
That's why I'd like an EV system that benefits Pokemon more the further away they are from a 500 or so BST

If Pokemon was luck based as you claim it to be then the outcome of every match would be 100% random, there would be no leaderboards or anything like that, since every player would have the same percentage of winning

But thats not the case. You have lots of very consistent players who can reliably place high at tournaments, if you say the game takes no skill then this wouldnt be the case.

I do think it would be better if they removed a lot of the rng shit, like crits and flinches and shit like ice beam having a 10% freeze chance. But the presence of those things doesnt make the game uncompetitive.

>>32913237
That's not thw moral of the game's plot.

>>32915264
She never mentions joy in her quote