>>12809863>assuming that luck only rewards bad playersLuck effects everyone. A good player can pull out a bullshit crit and auto-win just as easily as a bad player can. There is no argument to be made whatsoever that luck "rewards bad players"; It's a universal variable.
The point of luck in a game like Pokemon is to increase the dynamic of the game. Without luck elements, all aspects of Pokemon would become imbalanced. You need Accuracy to balance powerful moves against weaker ones; Without it, Flamethrower is never viable over Fire Blast, Hurricane is always used over Air Slash, Thunder over Thunderbolt. Critical Hits are needed to stop stall from being the best (and by "best" I mean "only") viable playstyle; Without them, the game becomes "first person to KO the enemy p/hazer wins". Other aspects of randomness, such as random status afflictions and flinches, simply help to make every game different and reduce the amount of "hard counters" in the game, thereby upping variety and lowering the "Team A beats Team B" factor.
Remember that Double Team isn't banned because Luck is bad, but because Double Team is so powerful that Luck becomes the single most important factor in a match when its used.
>>12810854>Remove entry hazardsThis wouldn't balance much. Entry Hazards make a select few Pokemon unusable, but for the most part if something is a good Pokemon you'll see it in OU regardless of a Stealth Rock weakness. Salamence, Gyarados, Volcarona... these are all Pokemon that excel in an environment with Stealth Rock despite losing as much as half their HP to it. On the other hand, what otherwise OU-worthy Pokemon does Stealth Rock inhibit? I honestly can't think of /anything/ that would become OU material just by removing Stealth Rock. Meanwhile, if Stealth Rock were banned, Pokemon like the aforementioned Salamence and Volcarona would surely be OP, leading to their banning and therefore /less/ variety in OU (you'd just see BL Pokemon more frequently, is all).
