Obviously he's a fair bit blinded by salt, but do you think there is a kernal of truth to the RNG factor of this game? I worry dumb luck and coinflips aren't just unavoidable but more than just simply impactful.

tl;dr

>competitive pokemon
lol
lmao

>>57929354 (OP)

>>57929354 (OP)
>screenshot from chrome
Lololololol

Yes, many games do often come down to luck, that's why i think pokemon tournaments are bullshit. But playing on the ladder is fine because if you play 500 games the luck will even out and a single game lost to luck will be irrelevant, and if you're good you are guaranteed to climb over time. So yeah stay away from tournaments and climb the ladder if you wanna play competitive. Also if you somehow disagree with any of this you're retarded and don't even reply

>>57929354 (OP)
Was he using low accuracy moves or was the opponent?

Should have played doubles.

>>57929354 (OP)
Any top ladder player has to eventually come to terms with the fact that Pokemon is RNG all the way down, and no matter how skilled you become, you will always be at the mercy of luck and hax and never 100% consistent. You can quit and stop wasting your time, but you have to quit knowing that there is no alternative (at all, let alone better) for the time being and foreseeable future.

>>57929354 (OP)
stay mad lmao

>>57929561
https://youtu.be/UvbwQzSBFjo
Flinching. Mute it if you don't like tiktok meme SFX

>>57929354 (OP)
Pokemon has always had random chance. It's a game that has always run on RNG. If it didn't, those effects would just be 100% chances to occur and people would be even angrier, because if those effects didn't occur the game would be boring and every team would be literally identical. If anything, GF should lean further into the RNG. It's baffling that people who are playing this children's game are really willing to grand stand about tactical choices like this, honestly. The game is meant to be fun and you didn't win, so you have to find a reason and you declare it to be RNG? Good job, you're against fun. This is worse than people playing smash with no items. If you really don't like it than maybe you should take advantage of the RNG, too.

>>57929764
You don't get to complain about Flinch if you're using Jirachi.

>>57929561
>>57929764
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zruui3yeBk

>>57929354 (OP)
is just a video game, why you heff to be mad?

>>57930052
Basically the end of the arguemnt. He’s mad because he lost - there’s nothing legitimate about him complaining about RNG because he went out of his way to abuse it too.

>>57929354 (OP)
>lavos
now that's a name i haven't heard in a long time

>>57930426
what a salty little bitch

>>57929354 (OP)
he's right about one thing at least: competitive pokemon is awful to play. every single game you're just hoping RNG doesn't decide to fuck you over. whether that be a move missing, a random secondary effect swinging the game, a random crit swinging the game, or even just shit like scale shot hitting 4 vs 5 times.
and there's nothing you as a player can do to mitigate this RNG, it's entirely out of your control. no matter how skilled of a player you are, no matter how well-crafted your team is or how solid your strategy is, there's literally nothing you can do when the other guy freezes three pokemon with ice beam.
it's a joke.

>>57929449
you're right, ladders/leagues >>>> tournaments for determining skill
the issue is pinhead spectators want the "excitement" of sudden eliminations, which means the glorified coinflipping of tournaments exists.
Applies to any competitive discipline.

>>57929375
This

>>57929354 (OP)
Everyone has to deal with the same RNG. Your job as the player is to mitigate it as much as possible. If you’re better prepared than your opponent, you’ll win more often than you lose. A single game or best-of with extremely bad luck is an outlier and doesn’t reflect your actual ability, so it’s not worth wasting time seething about it. It only matters when you get consistently bad luck, because that shows there’s a major flaw in your team prep or strategy. This guy flipping his shit so hard is proof that he’s weak.
>my prep was superior
>my play was superior
Evidently it wasn’t.

>singles format
lol
Strong Pokemon. Weak Pokemon. Only 12 year olds take singles format seriously, and im pretty sure these people arent 12 year olds.

>>57929354 (OP)
>my RNG reliant strategy didn't work
Maybe stop relying on RNG to win, then you’ll be less upset about RNG when you lose. By blaming the losses entirely on RNG, he’s admitting that none of his success was by his own doing, it was just the result of good RNG.
>no, it’s my good strategy when I when and bad RNG when I lose
lmfao stay mad

>>57931814
>>57931686
>>57930750
>>57929875
I'd be interested in a Pokemon gsme that used no RNG whatsoever. I mean I don't mind damage rolls as much as I do the high risk high reward of moves like Sleep Powder, Magma Storm, or crits.
What supplimentary system or mechanic could take its place? I imagine a game where moves need varying degrees of vullnerability to pull off succesfully. Trying to land Focus Blast needs you to get close to your opponent, but Swift you could stay back and at a distance to sacrifice the damage (low risk/reward). Maybe if you want Thunder to para or crit, you have to be even more vullnerable than the baseline the attack requires. This way it's either mechanically going to always hit or miss, a secondary effect will always have a way to occur or not, and the counterplay and adaptation could possibly focus on punishing vullnerability in plays the enemy makes.
I described it initially as a distance mechanic but I don't really like that, especially if doubles exists. What could work in its place?

>>57931825
we tried talking about this in the competetive thread but the conversation got shut down by some seething mid-level burnout debatelord. Specifically we were talking about how any RNG that can "skip your turn" should be removed. Paralysis for example could have both the speed debuff and a guaranteed "timer" for when the move skip is going to happen. So you get para'd, and after the next turn you know you need to either swap or stay in and tank the full para.

>>57932310
Turn skip like a Truant? Does the predictability make capitalizing on it too strong? I guess the inverse is if I know I'll be para'd that turn I can switch out or act accordingly too.

>>57931686
>Everyone has to deal with the same RNG.
I think that's the problem he's expressing, that RNG is way too pervasive and is ultimately the major deciding factor over knowledge/skill. He's coping hard after an embarrassing loss, but I don't think he's wrong at all. RNG is so ubiquitous that it makes getting into competitive Pokemon in the first place without genning or just using Showdown nearly impossible if you want to be competitive. Even if you do just use Showdown or gen your mons in, every single instance of damage you deal is dictated by RNG in the form of damage rolls and random critical hits, both of which can punish a player who did absolutely nothing wrong for literally no reason. Status is a complete other ballpark since you could make an argument that it's not necessarily the RNG behind status that's the problem, but the fact that so many status conditions boil down to "skip your turn, faggot lmao" and that a lot of strategies involve skipping the opponent's turn as often as humanly possible. Obviously things like low accuracy moves are to be taken into account by the player choosing to use them, that's understandable, that's the gamble you choose to make when you put that move in a slot over a more reliable one, but no player is choosing to participate in damage rolls or getting double RNG fucked by getting paralyzed in a 10% chance by thunderbolt, and then being unable to move in that same turn. He's malding, but I understand his frustration.