>>24678404>but switching is already inherently punished by NOT GETTING TO ATTACK THAT TURN.>The difference is, hard switching only presents the OPPORTUNITY to be punishedpick one buddy, you can't have inherent punishment and then claim that they situationally may or may not actually punish you for switching
>First they passively punish the opponent for switching regardless of their actions or despite playing passivelythis is one of the positive points of hazards though, to hamper passive play
in your first example, a stall team has virtually zero punishment for a switch; if your opponent has an alakazam out and you have a chansey, your opportunity cost is virtually zero; you either take a tiny amount of damage (you have recovery too) and gain momentum, or you take zero damage while your opponent doubles and you lose momentum
but without hazards you could literally switch forever until your opponent decides to give you a free turn to attack
in this case the loss of a turn isn't a punishment at all because you eventually gain momentum and receive no damage
>Second they're bullshit because they work not only on forced switches which the player doesn't control, but they work when a pokemon is sent out after one faints.It's hardly a valid complaint to say that whether you take damage or not isn't your decision. You don't have any control over whether attacks damage you either, or whether you take burn damage. That's an effect of the battle system too. You obviously don't have perfect control over the damage your Pokemon take in a battle.
