Luck-Based Game-play: Should it be banned?

[TheRealAussie]

I am not sure if many of you have heard of this, but Smogon (A competitive Pokemon community which controls most of the competitive Singles Format) has recently been debating whether to suspect test for banning using a combination of Swagger+Prankster in conjunction with Paralysis support and foul play due to abuse.

This is the basis of this for those of you whom do not know: Prankster is an ability which gives non-attacking moves priority, and when combined with Swagger, can easily be abused. Swagger is a move that confuses the opponent and raises their attack to +2. When you are confused, your chance of attacking successfully is 50%. This number is only decreased when you add paralysis to the equation. Not only this, but if they don't manage to break through, you hit yourself for potentially massive damage, and the opponent can use an attacking move on you such as foul play and hit the foe for heavy damage since foul play deals damage bases on the opponent's attack. Many argue that this "strategy" doesn't involve skill and only relies on luck to be successful. Another side argues that there are counters to this strategy and it shouldn't be banned. Plus they say that the game is already based on luck.

Here is this in action:

http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/oususpecttest-84950109

Now, this entire thread isn't about Pokemon, but it is a good example to bring up an interesting question: Should luck-based game-play be banned? Many games rely on luck but only to a certain extent. Is doing what is shown above pushing the limit of luck-based game-
play?

Standard Definition of "Uncompetitive" Uncompetitive game aspects (or strategies) are those that take away autonomy (control of the game's events), take it out of the hand's of player's decisions-- and do so to a degree that can be considered uncompetitive (Smogon).


TL;DR? What are your opinions on luck-based game-play? And where do you stand on the original example (See example above)?

Discuss your feelings on this below. (Try not to flame)

(If I missed anything please notify me)

 

[RC_4777]

Luck based gameplay is fine when it is 1. Not ridiculously luck-based; there is still a degree of consistency and 2. The luck factor can be controlled to a degree by the player. For example, chest routes: while chests are random, by forming a good chest route you can make the chances of getting good things much better. Another example is the Pokemon TCG; while card games involve luck, the player can help make themselves more likely to get things they need and do well by including fair amounts of deck searching and drawing cards and by using cards that are good together.

 

[TheRealAussie]

Luck based gameplay is fine when it is 1. Not ridiculously luck-based; there is still a degree of consistency and 2. The luck factor can be controlled to a degree by the player. For example, chest routes: while chests are random, by forming a good chest route you can make the chances of getting good things much better. Another example is the Pokemon TCG; while card games involve luck, the player can help make themselves more likely to get things they need and do well by including fair amounts of deck searching and drawing cards and by using cards that are good together.

I agree with this, but with the original example, I believe that too much reliance on it shouldn't be allowed.