Jump to content

King's rock / Razor fang


Recommended Posts

What is this?

 

A thread to discuss King's rock / Razor fang and its presence in the game.

 

First, its text reads: "An item to be held by a Pokemon. When the holder inflicts damage, the target may flinch (10%)".

Second, this chance procs for each successful hit, independently, also it doesn't stack with moves that can already flinch.

 

 

What makes it problematic?

 

Stacking with multi-hit moves, mostly with Cloyster's Skill link. This creates an environment where the Pokemon can flinch the enemy ~40% of the time provided it hits first. This not only turns small-chance events into a gamechanging effect that is quite common and cannot be controlled by the players, but also makes it viable (Therefore used) enough in today's metagame to warrant a discussion.

 

 

 

 

What makes it different from any other chance-based event in Pokemon?

 

These events are comprised of critical hits, misses, flinches, status, rolls, etc, etc. Every single one of these is associated with the primary intent of hitting the enemy, which is not uncompetitive in any form. Take, for example, using Waterfall or Air Slash. These moves wouldn't be used if they could only flinch. Instead, they are used to damage the enemy, and their secondary effect is seen as merely an extra beneficial factor.

 

However, the same does not apply to these items. When using them, the user is granted uncontrollable small-chance events, and nothing else. In other words, their primary intent becomes relying on low-chance events that cannot be controlled, thus relying solely on uncompetitive mechanics that can potentially undermine the whole nature of a competitive game.

 

 

Please discuss and, if you are in favor of a ban, include which ban criteria you believe these items fall within, whenever possible.

Edited by pachima
Link to comment
  • Munya featured and pinned this topic
1 hour ago, pachima said:

These moves wouldn't be used if they could only flinch. Instead, they are used to damage the enemy, and their secondary effect is seen as merely an extra beneficial factor.

While I'm not in favour of these items staying, this logic is a bit weird. "Extra beneficial factor" CAN be the primary reason why you would run some moves, like Discharge over Tbolt, Scald over Surf, etc. If you try to differentiate the uncompetitive aspect of using these items by the intent, it doesn't work, because there can be many choices and plays where you have to rely on low-chance events and intently try to trigger them. 

 

If we talk purely about intent, choosing Discharge over Tbolt is the same thing as choosing King's Rock over another item IF you play moves that give flinching chance.

 

However this item allows flinching chance for moves that didn't possess the low-chance event to happen to begin with - in a broken way for some cases with the multi hit move situation (as u said good enough to be played). To me, the intent is uncompetitive not when it only increase odds at something to happen but when it CREATES whole new side effect that is uncontrollable. The intent of playing King's rock on Togekiss Air slash isn't the same of playing King's rock on Cloyster. In one case, you could compare it to choosing Discharge over Tbolt, on the other, you just add a broken feature to a move that wasn't designed to have it. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Poufilou said:

While I'm not in favour of these items staying, this logic is a bit weird. "Extra beneficial factor" CAN be the primary reason why you would run some moves, like Discharge over Tbolt, Scald over Surf, etc.

I disagree. If those moves did not damage at all, they would see no usage. People don't use discharge or scald solely to paralyze or to burn. They use them because on top of damaging the added chance overall compensates for the loss of power, or in other words +20% status ailment is worth more in some cases than the 10 extra power.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, pachima said:

I disagree. If those moves did not damage at all, they would see no usage. People don't use discharge or scald solely to paralyze or to burn. They use them because on top of damaging the added chance overall compensates for the loss of power, or in other words +20% status ailment is worth more in some cases than the 10 extra power.

Your approach rely on a supposition that doesn't exist (if they did no dmg...). 

 

My approach is exactly knowing that it is an intent choice to get small chance of bonus effect for the purpose of adding the bonus effect (because either way you choose both moves to damage the opponent). 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Poufilou said:

However this item allows flinching chance for moves that didn't possess the low-chance event to happen to begin with - in a broken way for some cases with the multi hit move situation (as u said good enough to be played). To me, the intent is uncompetitive not when it only increase odds at something to happen but when it CREATES whole new side effect that is uncontrollable. The intent of playing King's rock on Togekiss Air slash isn't the same of playing King's rock on Cloyster. In one case, you could compare it to choosing Discharge over Tbolt, on the other, you just add a broken feature to a move that wasn't designed to have it. 

A counter-argument to this would be that King's Rock is as much part of the game as anything else and that it could be legit to add a 10% flinching feature to any move that didn't possess them. But then, the primary feature of this item would be to add a 10% flinching chance, which is not the case when it comes to using it along with multi-hit moves. I personnally see 2 options within my own logic but there can be more aspects to discuss

 

- Either we debate if adding a small percentage effect to any move is inherently not competitive (and we will have to derail and talk about intent and stuff while we intently use RNG the same way for other stuff)

- Either we debate about the broken effects of these items and not just their moral presence (we wouldn't mind it or talk about it the same way at all if multi-hit triggering wasn't a thing)

 

In my opinion, I don't mind an item adding 10% chance of something to happen (whether it creates it or enhance an already existing chance). Small percentage events are part of the game and we use them during our movepool choices (whether it be side effect or accuracy), not only choosing item over another. It becomes however problematic when the original feature (adding 10%) can reach 40%, that isn't for me a "small percentage chance" that can be compared to others when we make our choices, and that isn't punished in any major way (just like Scald/Discharge is punished with less power, or big moves with less accuracy). For me that is where it breaks balance.

 

All in all, it's mostly how people enjoy playing, so there can be other opinions about what is too much or not. Some players like to take risks, others don't. We are humans, not computers, and even if statistically King's Rock will not be overwhelming enough to win all games, players frustration to play against whether it works or not is a good indicator of something unhealthy and broken. One gets less angry about the Togeflinch than the Cloyster flinch, because in one case, you know it can happen, and you know it can be decent strat to increase some odds, in the other, you just curse the other for playing this and pray during the game for RNG to be in your favor.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Where in the tiering policy is "primary intent" a banworthy factor? Please link where that is stated.

  

On 10/24/2021 at 11:26 AM, Munya said:

 3. Uncompetitive

Moves or abilities may be banned if they are deemed uncompetitive, based on one of the following aspects.

 

Luck based:

Uncompetitive Luck based Aspects are those that create unacceptable degrees of RNG that take away autonomy for the players. What may be considered an unacceptable degree is rather subjective, so it’s important to keep in mind that there is always luck involved in Pokemon, but not every luck based aspect needs to be removed.

 

E:

I know what you meant, but let's just focus on the matter of subject and get rid of shitty shit from our metagame instead of discussing under which policy it should be pinned. Healthy metagame should be the priority here 

Edited by RysPicz
Link to comment

When you try to make a case for something to get banned as uncompetitive, you put forward arguments to show that the degree of RNG involved is UNACCEPTABLE. Primary Intent is completly irrelevant? What does that even mean anyways? The primary intent of the player using whatever may be deem banworthy? The primary intent of the item itself? Can an item have intent? Like WTF. Just refer to the tiering policy instead of this farce. 

 

I am completly fine with KR getting banned, but please can you guys put at least a semblance of effort into this ban? 

Link to comment

Welcome to the discussion thread, are you aware of what discussion threads are for?   This isn't a ban reason thread that stuff will be ironed out at the time of the voting, this is a thread to discuss issues that may or may not be surrounding the items known as Kings Rock/Razor Fang, all of which have some level of bias attributed to them as far as I have seen, and all of which will probably never have a perfect thread made for them for any one individual. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

I know what you meant, but let's just focus on the matter of subject and get rid of shitty shit from our metagame instead of discussing under which policy it should be pinned. Healthy metagame should be the priority here 

It does matter tho because they have no shame in banning P2 as Offensive Uber. Imagine how stupid that sounds: P2 eviolite banned as OFFENSIVE UBER!!! It would be so simple to actually listen to the community and what they have to say and ban p2 as Defensive Uber, but they don't listen and disregard their own tiering policy. There is absolutely no point in opening discussion threads if they do not consider the arguments being presented. KR is no different. They will set a new precedent out of the blue that primary intent is a ban criteria under the uncompetitive umbrella. No one knows what that means or wtf they are talking about. 

 

The discussion needs to be centered around the 40% flinch, not about the comparing primary intent of Moves vs Items. The primary intent of moves like Waterfall is different from the primary intent of items like KR? Euh, maybe? And no one cares really. 

Link to comment

I want to kindly point that this thread has two parts. One explaining why the item can be problematic, thus warranting a discussion, which is focused in its interaction with Skill Link, strenghtening its uncompetitive status, and the other explaining why it should not be compared to other rng events, to avoid the inevitable fact that people would then vow to discuss stuff like Togekiss in the same way. This also means that what is stated in part two is not the answer to part 1 and vice versa. 

 

Thank you all. 

 

Link to comment

I have a hard time figuring out what's left to discuss after reading the answer to that bolded question

 

6 hours ago, pachima said:

What makes it problematic?

 

Stacking with multi-hit moves, mostly with Cloyster's Skill link. This creates an environment where the Pokemon can flinch the enemy ~40% of the time provided it hits first

Like, that's it and that's enough of a reason lmao we don't need hypothetical debates about intent or whatever especially since it's so flawed in its premises. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Munya said:

Welcome to the discussion thread, are you aware of what discussion threads are for?   This isn't a ban reason thread that stuff will be ironed out at the time of the voting, this is a thread to discuss issues that may or may not be surrounding the items known as Kings Rock/Razor Fang, all of which have some level of bias attributed to them as far as I have seen, and all of which will probably never have a perfect thread made for them for any one individual. 

6 hours ago, pachima said:

Please discuss and, if you are in favor of a ban, include which ban criteria you believe these items fall within, whenever possible.

I don't know what you are smoking @Munya, but it's clear that this thread is for discussing ban reasons. 

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, gbwead said:

When you try to make a case for something to get banned as uncompetitive, you put forward arguments to show that the degree of RNG involved is UNACCEPTABLE. Primary Intent is completly irrelevant? What does that even mean anyways? The primary intent of the player using whatever may be deem banworthy? The primary intent of the item itself? Can an item have intent? Like WTF. Just refer to the tiering policy instead of this farce. 

 

I am completly fine with KR getting banned, but please can you guys put at least a semblance of effort into this ban? 

Well, it does make sense to me.

 

The primary intent of KR, in the way it's used(with multi hitting) is to flinch to target. Without the flinches, there would be a plethora of the meta that it wouldn't break, especially since it sacrifices its life orb or whatever other item you'd want to use. In comparison, Waterfall as the OP mentioned where you pretty much don't consider the flinch when determining if a mon would be useful or not(unless para flinch?). This all leads to 'luck based' in the tiering, which I guess the OP could have mentioned, regardless, who even cares.

 

This debate is not useful. Let's just get a swift ban on these disgusting items.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, KaynineXL said:

Well, it does make sense to me.

 

The primary intent of KR, in the way it's used(with multi hitting) is to flinch to target. Without the flinches, there would be a plethora of the meta that it wouldn't break, especially since it sacrifices its life orb or whatever other item you'd want to use. In comparison, Waterfall as the OP mentioned where you pretty much don't consider the flinch when determining if a mon would be useful or not(unless para flinch?). This all leads to 'luck based' in the tiering, which I guess the OP could have mentioned, regardless, who even cares.

 

This debate is not useful. Let's just get a swift ban on these disgusting items.

Waterfall is a move. KR is an item. The primary intent of a move vs an item is hardly comparable since an item has no other function or utility. Moves often have secondary effects. Items only have one function. Leftovers heals a specific amount of HP. Flame Orb burns the user. Items do not have secondary effects, they do not have secondary intent. So Primary Intent doesn't make sense for items since that is the only intent they have. Also, the wording secondary effect is very misleading. Sometimes people use scald because of the burn potential over the dmg it deals. When my empoleon spams Scald vs another Empoleon, my primary intent is to burn that Empoleon and the dmg I deal is secondary. Sometimes I want to Flinch with Waterfall, sometimes I want to do dmg with Waterfall, sometimes both. Secondary Intent =/= Secondary Effect. It depends on the game situation and on the players. What goes on in a players' head doesn't really matter and has never been used as a ban argument in PokeMMO. 

 

Let me give you some examples as to why primary intent is irrelevant. When I choose to play Flame Body Chandelure over Flash Fire, I'm trying to fish for RNG that's the primary intent, there is no other intention. I could play Flash Fire, but I choose to go for the RNG route. Does that mean Flame Body Chandelure should be banned based on intent alone? Ofc NOT. The intent is irrelevant. If I use Metronome on Ludicolo for the very unlikely chance of doing a Quiver Dance, that's my intent, but that doesn't make Metronome Ludicolo banworthy. If I use Magnitude instead of EQ for the 5% chance of doing a 150 bp ground move instead of a 100 bp ground move, that's the primary intent for that choice and once again the intent is utterly irrelevant. 

 

A burn from Flame Body depends on very specific conditions (contact move) / odds (30% chance) and a burn is usually not as detrimental as multiple chance to flinch. The odds of doing Quiver Dance with Ludicolo thanks to Metronome is so low compared to the high flinch chance of KR with Multi hit moves. The winning potential of Quiver Dance Ludicolo is probably not as great as +2 Cloyster with KR. The 5% chance of doing a 150 BP ground move from Magnitude is certainly not as good as the KR Flinch Potential on Cloyster. My point is that what matters is the game, what happens during duels. The uncompetitiveness of KR is determined by the RNG effect of KR, not the intent of the players using the item or the gamefreak devs coming up with the KR mechanic. Intent is irrelevant in a such a ban discussion. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Waterfall is a move. KR is an item. The primary intent of a move vs an item is hardly comparable since an item has no other function or utility. Moves often have secondary effects. Items only have one function. Leftovers heals a specific amount of HP. Flame Orb burns the user. Items do not have secondary effects, they do not have secondary intent. So Primary Intent doesn't make sense for items since that is the only intent they have. Also, the wording secondary effect is very misleading. Sometimes people use scald because of the burn potential over the dmg it deals. When my empoleon spams Scald vs another Empoleon, my primary intent is to burn that Empoleon and the dmg I deal is secondary. Sometimes I want to Flinch with Waterfall, sometimes I want to do dmg with Waterfall, sometimes both. Secondary Intent =/= Secondary Effect. It depends on the game situation and on the players. What goes on in a players' head doesn't really matter and has never been used as a ban argument in PokeMMO. 

 

Let me give you some examples as to why primary intent is irrelevant. When I choose to play Flame Body Chandelure over Flash Fire, I'm trying to fish for RNG that's the primary intent, there is no other intention. I could play Flash Fire, but I choose to go for the RNG route. Does that mean Flame Body Chandelure should be banned based on intent alone? Ofc NOT. The intent is irrelevant. If I use Metronome on Ludicolo for the very unlikely chance of doing a Quiver Dance, that's my intent, but that doesn't make Metronome Ludicolo banworthy. If I use Magnitude instead of EQ for the 5% chance of doing a 150 bp ground move instead of a 100 bp ground move, that's the primary intent for that choice and once again the intent is utterly irrelevant. 

 

A burn from Flame Body depends on very specific conditions (contact move) / odds (30% chance) and a burn is usually not as detrimental as multiple chance to flinch. The odds of doing Quiver Dance with Ludicolo thanks to Metronome is so low compared to the high flinch chance of KR with Multi hit moves. The winning potential of Quiver Dance Ludicolo is probably not as great as +2 Cloyster with KR. The 5% chance of doing a 150 BP ground move from Magnitude is certainly not as good as the KR Flinch Potential on Cloyster. My point is that what matters is the game, what happens during duels. The uncompetitiveness of KR is determined by the RNG effect of KR, not the intent of the players using the item or the gamefreak devs coming up with the KR mechanic. Intent is irrelevant in a such a ban discussion. 

 

That's a lot of words my boy.

 

On 11/12/2021 at 5:16 AM, DaftCoolio said:

How is this different to regular RNG? Its intent. The only reason to run kings rock is to remove autonomy from your opponent, it is the single and only goal.

I couldn't say it any better than Coolio. The intent of the item with skill link and a multi hitting move makes its intent noticeably terrible to play against and uncompetitive, otherwise we wouldn't really give a fuck.

 

intent intent, primary intent. why are we saying intent so much. It's not important, it's elongating this discussion and we really don't need to, we've already discussed this at length. For the love of god Gbwead, have mercy on the TC and Munya and fight to get it banned and not to discuss if intent should be used in the OP.

 

Much love xox

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, KaynineXL said:

 

That's a lot of words my boy.

 

I couldn't say it any better than Coolio. The intent of the item with skill link and a multi hitting move makes its intent noticeably terrible to play against and uncompetitive, otherwise we wouldn't really give a fuck.

 

intent intent, primary intent. why are we saying intent so much. It's not important, it's elongating this discussion and we really don't need to, we've already discussed this at length. For the love of god Gbwead, have mercy on the TC and Munya and fight to get it banned and not to discuss if intent should be used in the OP.

 

Much love xox

If they want to add INTENT as a ban reason, they should update the tiering policy then,

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gbwead said:

It does matter tho because they have no shame in banning P2 as Offensive Uber. Imagine how stupid that sounds: P2 eviolite banned as OFFENSIVE UBER!!! It would be so simple to actually listen to the community and what they have to say and ban p2 as Defensive Uber, but they don't listen and disregard their own tiering policy. There is absolutely no point in opening discussion threads if they do not consider the arguments being presented. KR is no different. They will set a new precedent out of the blue that primary intent is a ban criteria under the uncompetitive umbrella. No one knows what that means or wtf they are talking about. 

 

The discussion needs to be centered around the 40% flinch, not about the comparing primary intent of Moves vs Items. The primary intent of moves like Waterfall is different from the primary intent of items like KR? Euh, maybe? And no one cares really. 

I totally agree with you there, that banning a defensive behemoth like P2 under offensive Uber is beyond ridiculous and I can barely find words in any of 3 languages I know that can describe the idiocy behind it (and those that I do know would probably earn me the last warning). But, honestly, I wanna focus on results- P2 was a problem, it got banned. Good. Idc about reasons behind it, main thing is to get our metagames in all tiers better. I feel like you are focusing too much on policies GB- regardless of the place, it's results that matter, not methods and I can give you multitude of examples to prove my point.

 

My wish is to have a good, healthy metagame in every tier, where all playstyles are viable and tiers themselves are fun to play. Isn't this what we all are aiming at? 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, RysPicz said:

I totally agree with you there, that banning a defensive behemoth like P2 under offensive Uber is beyond ridiculous and I can barely find words in any of 3 languages I know that can describe the idiocy behind it (and those that I do know would probably earn me the last warning). But, honestly, I wanna focus on results- P2 was a problem, it got banned. Good. Idc about reasons behind it, main thing is to get our metagames in all tiers better. I feel like you are focusing too much on policies GB- regardless of the place, it's results that matter, not methods and I can give you multitude of examples to prove my point.

 

My wish is to have a good, healthy metagame in every tier, where all playstyles are viable and tiers themselves are fun to play. Isn't this what we all are aiming at? 

If the thread is opened, it's already a given that KR is going to get banned. The discussion is really just a formality. I'm glad that KR will be banned, but once again I fear for the precedent it will set if it gets banned for the wrong reason like INTENT which opens the door to so much non sense. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, gbwead said:

If the thread is opened, it's already a given that KR is going to get banned. The discussion is really just a formality. I'm glad that KR will be banned, but once again I fear for the precedent it will set if it gets banned for the wrong reason like INTENT which opens the door to so much non sense. 

It does, for sure. But is it necessarily bad? There are so many things that need to be addressed. Sand veil, quick claw, acupressure, cursed body etc etc. We got a lot of stuff to discuss and hopefully remove. I totally understand your point of view but many of our tiers (especially OU) scream for help and I would go really far to get it fixed. King's rock is a step ahead. Let's focus on it, discuss THE ITEM, it's impact and not the policies. I know you are behind of banning KR so let's focus on this. Step by step. Let's focus on the important stuff. 

Link to comment
On 3/17/2022 at 10:07 AM, pachima said:

What makes it different from any other chance-based event in Pokemon?

 

These events are comprised of critical hits, misses, flinches, status, rolls, etc, etc. Every single one of these is associated with the primary intent of hitting the enemy, which is not uncompetitive in any form. Take, for example, using Waterfall or Air Slash. These moves wouldn't be used if they could only flinch. Instead, they are used to damage the enemy, and their secondary effect is seen as merely an extra beneficial factor.

 

However, the same does not apply to these items. When using them, the user is granted uncontrollable small-chance events, and nothing else. In other words, their primary intent becomes relying on low-chance events that cannot be controlled, thus relying solely on uncompetitive mechanics that can potentially undermine the whole nature of a competitive game.

 

 

Problem is: Everything on any Pokémon game is based on luck.
 

Some examples:
For what reason players use Tri-Attack instead of Hyper Voice, on togekiss, even if Hyper Voice does more damage and can bypass substitute? Because of luck. 40-42% stat problem chance.
For what reason some players prefer Discharge instead of Thunderbolt on jolteon? Luck, Paralyze chance 
And Scald, instead of Surf? Luck, burn chance.
Or body slam togekiss, even if togekiss have a ridiculous physical attack? Again, Luck. Paralyze chance.

With king's rock is the same case. People use it because are counting on luck. 41,59% Luck. Is a lame chance, compared to Togekiss Scarfed Serene Grace + Air Slash(60% chance)
And some things only becomes a problem because players make that thing a problem. King's Rock is a clear example. Before the first posts talking about him, their usage is around 2%. Now, most item used on Cloyster. Why? Because novices don't have any good sense. If players talk now: "Smeargle is OP on Over Used" , will not take too much time to smeargle growth their usage, because novices will spam it(This is a example). 

And their flinch have natural Counters and checks. 2 Examples on OU(1 Counter and 1 Check):
Lucario - Solid Counter, can be immune to flinch and OHKO cloyster with vaccum wave.  - OU mon, and some top ranks use it.
Infernape - Most used Check. Can OHKO cloyster with vaccum wave, and force it to use Ice Shard to survive, but chance of flinch is 10%. So, it's rare that you lose to one. Infernape can still resolve some problems in OU, like Volcarona. So, isn't a useless mon on your team that will only check cloyster.
Inner Focus negates complety flinch. If Trick Room is under effect, you can use Special moves, especially Aura Sphere or Focus Blast(Rarely HP Fight for players that only cannot hit Focus Blast) to take Cloyster Away. Why i'm talking about Cloyster? Because is the mon that are most used with King's Rock.

The real problem isn't King's Rock, and their flinch chance. At least until now,TC don't consider uncompetitive Togekiss + Air Slash and open a thread to discuss him, even if have ~20% more flinch chance than Cloyster + King's Rock, and with scarf,pass all non-scarfed mons that "exists"(have 1% usage at least) on Metagaming OU. The problem is: Players on any pokemon game, use and abuse from luck. And this cannot be avoided, even if King's Rock being banned. Because Pokémon Games are based on Luck. If ban those items, i don't be suprised if i see more togekiss scarfed with Air Slash, that intent is clearly flinch.

We don't need coments. If some players never complaine on forum to ask about this item, this thread probablly don't need to be created. 
 

Edited by caioxlive13
Link to comment

I'm on phone and idk why I can't edit my post? But I would just like to ask all od you to focus on the discussion itself. We got a common goal, let's head towards it. MMO has plenty of shitty RNG strategies and this thread shows that we do have something to do in regards of removing them. 

Link to comment
  • Kyu unfeatured this topic
  • Munya locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.