>>33954847Yes it is unfair because Focus Blast SHOULD hit 7 out of 10 times, but if you use Focus Blast 10 times, it's very unlikely it will hit 7 times. It's unfair because there's literally no control over it. It's possible for Focus Blast to miss all 10 times or hit all 10 times. It's not the same for everyone so it's unfair. In the same match, one Focus Blast user could miss 5 times in a row, the other player then hits with it 5 times in a row. That's possible. It's fundamentally unfair.
>>33954958Saying that unfair games are more fun is a valid argument if there wasn't a tournament scene or a community which is striving for a balanced game. But then what do you mean by "unfair games are more fun"? Are you saying it's more fun to pretty much have no real influence on the game? That is, the game will sometimes randomly decide a winner of the game through rewarding bad play or punishing good play for no discernible reason other than "IT'S RANDOM LOL XDDD"? Taking your example of CHALK teams, if that was truly the most balanced instance of Pokemon as a game, and if it were indeed as boring as you say, then that's just an indication of a fundamentally flawed and poorly designed game from the start. I've been saying for years that Pokemon needs an actual overhaul of its mechanics. Having said this, everyone using CHALK teams, which, as you said, included a 6th personal pick, means that some form of variety is still viable. The reason why CHALK and such strategy was dominant was presumably because it was the optimal choice in the meta at the time. I think it's far more interesting to see how players overcome slight variations of, or, the same team, through actual good play and strategy. It's certainly more interesting than "Player 2 got a crit in grand finals that wins him the set! OOPS!"
