How can it not be mechanically accurate when there is no in-game sleep clause to begin with? As far as I can tell, this "Wifi emulation" kick Smogon seems to be on is solely based off a rule that Wifi has chosen to use. I have no doubt that Wifi players would use our current sleep clause as is if they had the chance. The fact is that they don't have that capability, so forcing a forfeit is the next best way of coping with the issue.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
5th Gen Sleep Clause Implementation
- Thread starter eric the espeon
- Start date
How can it not be mechanically accurate when there is no in-game sleep clause to begin with? As far as I can tell, this "Wifi emulation" kick Smogon seems to be on is solely based off a rule that Wifi has chosen to use. I have no doubt that Wifi players would use our current sleep clause as is if they had the chance. The fact is that they don't have that capability, so forcing a forfeit is the next best way of coping with the issue.
NO no no no no what you did was delete posts that disagree with you. The fact that you can say that what you guys what to do is play pokemon and what we want to do is play some kind of "fake pokemon" is fucking downright bullshit. You're framing the argument in a way most beneficial to yourself and once again you're trying to silence the other side exactly the way you did in the banlist issue. We're not presenting an argument against playing pokemon. We're arguing that we do the SAME EXACT THING THAT GAME FREAK DID IN A COMPETITIVE ORIENTED GAME AND TWEAK SLEEP CLAUSE. We didn't make classic sleep clause out of thin air. Game Freak did it because classic sleep clause is best suited for a competitive enviroment. WE ARE a competitive environment. You can't say our arguments are not legitimate arguments and then just fucking hard delete (oops) every post that disagrees with you.
This debate should not even be happening, since we are a Pokemon website, and Pokemon is what we're supposed to be playing -- not some hybrid of different Pokemon games, or some game that's almost like Pokemon, but "better" as defined by the players. If you want to change Smogon to a website that is about playing an "improved" version (improved in quotes, because I don't think classic sleep clause improves anything, and I'll explain why in a bit) of Pokemon, instead of actual Pokemon, then that should be the subject of the debate. Because frankly, that would be the only grounds where it would be acceptable to change the mechanics of Pokemon.
Now, I will humor you and assume that changing a game's mechanic to our liking is even a debatable issue. I think making sleep moves "fail" when you have already put another one of your opponent's Pokemon to sleep is a bad idea for two primary competitive reasons.
1. Doing this allows users to partake in otherwise risky strategies with no worry of penalty. For example, by ensuring a sleep move will fail, someone can abuse Breloom behind a substitute against a faster opponent who is currently asleep. Imagine this scenario:
A fast Dragonite switches into Breloom to absorb a Spore. Now Breloom can use Substitute, attack Dragonite, and when its sleep counter gets high, start spamming Spore so that as soon as Dragonite wakes up to break its Substitute, it gets put right back to sleep again. The Breloom user can safely keep putting Dragonite to sleep while maintaining its Substitute, without worrying about his opponent switching because the sleep move would simply fail. Strategies like these should not be allowed in competitive play without some sort of risk. It artificially increases Pokemon like Breloom's utility by a significant margin.
2. Allowing sleep moves to fail completely eliminates otherwise legitimate potential mind game strategies. I will use Roserade for this example. If you are facing a Roserade and bring Blissey in, you can no longer attempt to bluff its ability in order to apply pressure on your opponent's next decision. "Should I go for the Sleep Powder again, since Blissey will probably switch out and has Natural Cure, or should I play it safe, just in case Blissey has Serene Grace?"
As you can see, forcing sleep moves to fail actually significantly increases how good the move is. We aren't making the game better, we're making sleep-inducing Pokemon better. We are essentially crossing off multiple otherwise viable strategies to stop sleep users. And for what? So people can PP stall more efficiently? So people can "misclick" and get away with it just fine? If misclicking is the problem, I would much rather see a warning sign pop up and the cancel button reinstalled. At least those can be justified by calling the Pokemon simulator an effective "judge" who makes the moves for you. On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification for using the classic sleep clause.
Now, I will humor you and assume that changing a game's mechanic to our liking is even a debatable issue. I think making sleep moves "fail" when you have already put another one of your opponent's Pokemon to sleep is a bad idea for two primary competitive reasons.
1. Doing this allows users to partake in otherwise risky strategies with no worry of penalty. For example, by ensuring a sleep move will fail, someone can abuse Breloom behind a substitute against a faster opponent who is currently asleep. Imagine this scenario:
A fast Dragonite switches into Breloom to absorb a Spore. Now Breloom can use Substitute, attack Dragonite, and when its sleep counter gets high, start spamming Spore so that as soon as Dragonite wakes up to break its Substitute, it gets put right back to sleep again. The Breloom user can safely keep putting Dragonite to sleep while maintaining its Substitute, without worrying about his opponent switching because the sleep move would simply fail. Strategies like these should not be allowed in competitive play without some sort of risk. It artificially increases Pokemon like Breloom's utility by a significant margin.
2. Allowing sleep moves to fail completely eliminates otherwise legitimate potential mind game strategies. I will use Roserade for this example. If you are facing a Roserade and bring Blissey in, you can no longer attempt to bluff its ability in order to apply pressure on your opponent's next decision. "Should I go for the Sleep Powder again, since Blissey will probably switch out and has Natural Cure, or should I play it safe, just in case Blissey has Serene Grace?"
As you can see, forcing sleep moves to fail actually significantly increases how good the move is. We aren't making the game better, we're making sleep-inducing Pokemon better. We are essentially crossing off multiple otherwise viable strategies to stop sleep users. And for what? So people can PP stall more efficiently? So people can "misclick" and get away with it just fine? If misclicking is the problem, I would much rather see a warning sign pop up and the cancel button reinstalled. At least those can be justified by calling the Pokemon simulator an effective "judge" who makes the moves for you. On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification for using the classic sleep clause.
Don't be ridiculous. Every thread about the specifics of Sleep Clause should not be bogged down with ancillary issues. It's like how you can't talk about biology on a public forum, because any thread about a specific biological phenomenon gets attacked by a swarm of creationists who will sidetrack the thread into the ancillary issue of whether evolution by natural selection is a real phenomenon. It doesn't really matter how legitimate the arguments are: they're off topic.
As much as I am new to PR and the like, I feel that I have something to add to this issue that hasn't been said yet.
We know for a fact that pokemon is a battle of the minds (prediction wars, overpredicting, etc all influence the outcome of a match between two players), and hence more often than not the "smarter" player will win.
This "battle of the minds" idea brings me to the first point I'd like to adress: misclicking and certain situations when combined with the sleep clause. If we are to stay true to game mechanics (ie no "hard" sleep clause, just so we're clear), then forcing a forfeit upon sleeping a second mon seems the best course of action, as that is the way it is ingame(wifi competitive and the like).
But what about misclicks? I find the easiest--and most logical, I might add--solution is to place the blame on the player(s)' choices. By running the sleep move in the first place, he or she is knowingly accepting the fact that they might misclick in a match--potentially breaking the sleep clause. There is no "simulator" factor involved in it. Yes, shoddy (and PL I assume) CAN lag, but the root of the problem is that the player in question made the physical choice to run a sleep move. If they didn't and a misclick happened, nothing bad would occur. But as lag is a known problem for simulators such as PL and shoddy, if you run a sleep move you run the risk of forcing yourself to forfeit. You made the decision; it's not the simulator's fault.
That's how I believe misclicks should be handled with the sleep clause; you chose to run it, you run the risk of forfeiting because of the sleep clause activating.
The OP brings up a few valid points, that I quote here:
tl;dr Running <sleep move>/magic coat/etc is a risk v. reward situation; you run it, you run the risk of forfeiting if a case outlined in the OP happens.
Just my two cents.
We know for a fact that pokemon is a battle of the minds (prediction wars, overpredicting, etc all influence the outcome of a match between two players), and hence more often than not the "smarter" player will win.
This "battle of the minds" idea brings me to the first point I'd like to adress: misclicking and certain situations when combined with the sleep clause. If we are to stay true to game mechanics (ie no "hard" sleep clause, just so we're clear), then forcing a forfeit upon sleeping a second mon seems the best course of action, as that is the way it is ingame(wifi competitive and the like).
But what about misclicks? I find the easiest--and most logical, I might add--solution is to place the blame on the player(s)' choices. By running the sleep move in the first place, he or she is knowingly accepting the fact that they might misclick in a match--potentially breaking the sleep clause. There is no "simulator" factor involved in it. Yes, shoddy (and PL I assume) CAN lag, but the root of the problem is that the player in question made the physical choice to run a sleep move. If they didn't and a misclick happened, nothing bad would occur. But as lag is a known problem for simulators such as PL and shoddy, if you run a sleep move you run the risk of forcing yourself to forfeit. You made the decision; it's not the simulator's fault.
That's how I believe misclicks should be handled with the sleep clause; you chose to run it, you run the risk of forfeiting because of the sleep clause activating.
The OP brings up a few valid points, that I quote here:
I find this to be the exact same situation as with the misclicks above; when you run <move that potentially breaks sleep clause>, you run the risk of forfeiting. You made the decision consciously, not anyone else, so there shouldn't be any argument over who is to blame in those situations either.
tl;dr Running <sleep move>/magic coat/etc is a risk v. reward situation; you run it, you run the risk of forfeiting if a case outlined in the OP happens.
Just my two cents.
"Auto loss" from Sleep Clause breaking is silly if we are sticking true to game mechanics. Consider this (extremely stupid, but hey, we're justifying things on simulators with judges. This can't get any sillier) situation:
Your opponent broke Sleep Clause. For some reason, you don't mind. For some reason, you agree to continue on with the game.
Maybe you're being generous. Maybe you acknowledge that he misclicked. Maybe you are capable of avenging it. You get the idea. Why would you do this instead of taking the win? I don't know, but don't assume that *everyone* will simply take the win against a violator.
Now if we are using auto loss, neither side gets a chance. In game, you have the option to continue the battle even if your opponent has broken the rule. In game, you have the option to forgive your opponent. You should get the option to accept the win or keep battling.
What options do you have in a simulator instead of auto loss?
- Force Forfeit / Win buttons. These buttons become available to the victim as soon as the offender breaks a rule. Force Forfeit causes the opponent to forfeit after it has been clicked on. This action can be replicated with a judge (that is, if we're treating our sim like judges) irl. Force Win allows you to continue playing the game (or run away) but will result in you winning in the end. This reflects how things are done over wifi.
*****Keep in mind that the victim is not required to press these buttons. He/she can choose to proceed with the game. At any time in the game he or she wishes to change his or her mind from continue playing to "auto win", he/she can do so.
But say, the victim wants to avenge the opponent in another way. He has his own sleeper Pokemon and he breaks Sleep Clause on the violator. In this case, the initial victim forfeits the ability to use these buttons (as well as the Force Win condition if it is activated), yet at the same time the initial violator can not use them. The battle has entered a state of lawlessness where both players are allowed to break all the clauses.
If you're going to simulate "wireless sleep clause", at least do it right.
As far as the actual classic vs wireless sleep clause goes, I don't really mind who wins. (I prefer classic sleep clause because we don't go into convoluted situations such as "Does metronome-induced sleep break sleep clause?")
Your opponent broke Sleep Clause. For some reason, you don't mind. For some reason, you agree to continue on with the game.
Maybe you're being generous. Maybe you acknowledge that he misclicked. Maybe you are capable of avenging it. You get the idea. Why would you do this instead of taking the win? I don't know, but don't assume that *everyone* will simply take the win against a violator.
Now if we are using auto loss, neither side gets a chance. In game, you have the option to continue the battle even if your opponent has broken the rule. In game, you have the option to forgive your opponent. You should get the option to accept the win or keep battling.
What options do you have in a simulator instead of auto loss?
- Force Forfeit / Win buttons. These buttons become available to the victim as soon as the offender breaks a rule. Force Forfeit causes the opponent to forfeit after it has been clicked on. This action can be replicated with a judge (that is, if we're treating our sim like judges) irl. Force Win allows you to continue playing the game (or run away) but will result in you winning in the end. This reflects how things are done over wifi.
*****Keep in mind that the victim is not required to press these buttons. He/she can choose to proceed with the game. At any time in the game he or she wishes to change his or her mind from continue playing to "auto win", he/she can do so.
But say, the victim wants to avenge the opponent in another way. He has his own sleeper Pokemon and he breaks Sleep Clause on the violator. In this case, the initial victim forfeits the ability to use these buttons (as well as the Force Win condition if it is activated), yet at the same time the initial violator can not use them. The battle has entered a state of lawlessness where both players are allowed to break all the clauses.
If you're going to simulate "wireless sleep clause", at least do it right.
As far as the actual classic vs wireless sleep clause goes, I don't really mind who wins. (I prefer classic sleep clause because we don't go into convoluted situations such as "Does metronome-induced sleep break sleep clause?")
What about fair-play? That's also seen in competitive environments. And anyway, if the battler has the force win option enabled throughout the battle, he could just... enjoy the battle until the end, with the win guaranteed?
Don't tell me battles can't be enjoyed because this is competitive, otherwise there wouldn't be things like warstories.
I agree that this is bothersome work to implement it all, so maybe not implementable, but at least the suggestion in itself is good.
Don't tell me battles can't be enjoyed because this is competitive, otherwise there wouldn't be things like warstories.
I agree that this is bothersome work to implement it all, so maybe not implementable, but at least the suggestion in itself is good.
There's also some extreme bitching that will come in the case of Player A breaking sleep clause, being allowed to continue the battle, then later down the road of the battle Player B breaks sleep clause, with the justification of "well he got to break sleep clause once so I should get to be able to", but Player A is a (BAN ME PLEASE) and decides that he wants to take the win.
And if you think this won't happen just wait until a Tour match or a ST7 match rides on this.
And if you think this won't happen just wait until a Tour match or a ST7 match rides on this.
Well as I did mention in my original post, if Player B decides to take revenge and breaks sleep clause, he forfeits the use of the buttons, but the original violator will also remain unable to use them, and thus the game will proceed like normal but without any in battle clauses. This (hopefully) prevents
from happening
...Seriously? I guess 12 days of not wanting to look at these STUPID flame wars wasn't enough. You like to say that you're just disagreeing with Smogon Dictator Cathy and her Gang of Terrible Users but seriously open your eyes please. This isn't to say that the small minority isn't important or even that the majority in the linked poll is a good indicator of what people think about Sleep Clause, but honestly this is bordering on a vendetta. It gets more and more obvious why you push for locopoke being on everything.
The whole reason for Policy Review (and Inside Scoop I guess) is that people can't read each other's minds. Cathy made some judgment calls that could be considered wrong, and she retracted them. For all your demands for second chances, you've been pretty ruthless in going after Cathy for decisions that have been detracted.
I mean, fine, there are a lot of things that I and many others disagree with Cathy on, but this is simply ridiculous.
---
Anyway, I haven't read much of the topic, but I think that the Sleep Clause produced in the OP is enough. The little details that people seem to be arguing over aren't likely to occur in actual battle. If they DO occur in actual battle, then maybe all this will be relevant. However, I would modify it slightly to say "no other options" instead of "no other moves" to prevent Scarf Sleep silliness. i.e. The Scarf sleeper would have to switch. (ZOMG now he knows I'm Scarfed and I have to switch!!! ...except under Classic you'd be using the Sleep move again for no apparent reason, revealing your Scarf regardless.)
If you're a fan of honour system and all that, you can just play without any simulator-enforced sleep clause and resign when you break the rules, unless your opponent says you don't have to. Otherwise, there's not going to be any reason why you wouldn't want to take the win.
I agree with Jibaku's assertion about auto-loss being pretty silly, so what I say below is more in response to his theoretical solution to the theoretical problem, because I like the idea in general.
I think if there were to be an implementation of a "Force Forfeit / Win" condition in the case of somebody breaking Sleep Clause (or another clause, for that matter), it would not be a decision that should be allowed to be mulled over through the course of a match, and would be a matter of a "Yes/No" decision required immediately after the rule has been broken. Allowing you to have the option at all times is an unfair carrot to be dangled; you shouldn't be allowed to make a judgement call 80 turns down the line, when your 'guaranteed win' has turned into an almost certain loss due to luck/being outplayed unexpectedly. You let your opponent continue, you can't suddenly take that back at the end just because it benefits you; The Force Win (and allowing the match to continue, but the win is already yours) is a fair compromise for this. I haven't followed 4th Gen competitive all that much, but I do recall the pitfalls of the honor system in regards to some matches in SPL where established clauses were broken. Being honorable is cool and all, but you can't expect your opponent to follow the same honor system as you, nor should it be their responsibility; people play differently, and some people are gonna be dicks when you're nice to them because at the end it's only about the win column.
If you give people the choice, and they decide not to take the win, they shouldn't be suddenly allowed to break clause and have 'lawlessness' be established, as Jibaku had suggested. If your opponent violates sleep clause and you allow it by your own code of honor (thus forfeiting a guaranteed win), and then you go and violate sleep clause yourself later in the match, there is no reason your opponent shouldn't be able to call a win for themselves for you violating the rules; two wrongs don't make a right, so to speak. Taking that further, if you end up losing the match by not taking the Force Forfeit / Win, you have nobody but yourself to blame; a win for being a good person, a loss on the leaderboard.
I think if there were to be an implementation of a "Force Forfeit / Win" condition in the case of somebody breaking Sleep Clause (or another clause, for that matter), it would not be a decision that should be allowed to be mulled over through the course of a match, and would be a matter of a "Yes/No" decision required immediately after the rule has been broken. Allowing you to have the option at all times is an unfair carrot to be dangled; you shouldn't be allowed to make a judgement call 80 turns down the line, when your 'guaranteed win' has turned into an almost certain loss due to luck/being outplayed unexpectedly. You let your opponent continue, you can't suddenly take that back at the end just because it benefits you; The Force Win (and allowing the match to continue, but the win is already yours) is a fair compromise for this. I haven't followed 4th Gen competitive all that much, but I do recall the pitfalls of the honor system in regards to some matches in SPL where established clauses were broken. Being honorable is cool and all, but you can't expect your opponent to follow the same honor system as you, nor should it be their responsibility; people play differently, and some people are gonna be dicks when you're nice to them because at the end it's only about the win column.
If you give people the choice, and they decide not to take the win, they shouldn't be suddenly allowed to break clause and have 'lawlessness' be established, as Jibaku had suggested. If your opponent violates sleep clause and you allow it by your own code of honor (thus forfeiting a guaranteed win), and then you go and violate sleep clause yourself later in the match, there is no reason your opponent shouldn't be able to call a win for themselves for you violating the rules; two wrongs don't make a right, so to speak. Taking that further, if you end up losing the match by not taking the Force Forfeit / Win, you have nobody but yourself to blame; a win for being a good person, a loss on the leaderboard.
I talked to Jibaku a little bit about this, and he didn't seem "too opposed" to the idea. My issue is how hard it is to technically program, so don't call my solution the ultimatum. We implement two different "clauses" for the ladder. Both of these will remain unchecked, but the player cannot ladder until he / she chooses one of them. They are Simulator Clause and WiFi Clause.
Simulator Clause's goal is to follow whatever aspects of the game mechanics that are deemed "competitive" but were created from the Pokemon games and implemented into the system. Simulator Clause allows the combination of both Rotom formes and Classic Sleep Clause, one can say. They borrow elements from the game, and technically don't change the mechanics given from the games that they "worked" so to speak. Until Generation 5 has a game similar to Stadium / PBR, it will "borrow" these elements from Generation 4 in their game. This can also be argued to have "hidden teams" if warranted, but that is up for discussion.
WiFi Clause strictly follows every part of the game mechanic from the Cartridge games. It follows mostly the rules of what the WiFi people consider. The choice of using how they use their "honor system", a judge (where if the player breaks Sleep Clause twice they are considered the loser), or Jibaku's system.
I'm more in the argument for variety, and to be honest I can see both sides of the argument here. I apologize if my post was worthless in the end of all things, but at least I can say I tried, right?
Simulator Clause's goal is to follow whatever aspects of the game mechanics that are deemed "competitive" but were created from the Pokemon games and implemented into the system. Simulator Clause allows the combination of both Rotom formes and Classic Sleep Clause, one can say. They borrow elements from the game, and technically don't change the mechanics given from the games that they "worked" so to speak. Until Generation 5 has a game similar to Stadium / PBR, it will "borrow" these elements from Generation 4 in their game. This can also be argued to have "hidden teams" if warranted, but that is up for discussion.
WiFi Clause strictly follows every part of the game mechanic from the Cartridge games. It follows mostly the rules of what the WiFi people consider. The choice of using how they use their "honor system", a judge (where if the player breaks Sleep Clause twice they are considered the loser), or Jibaku's system.
I'm more in the argument for variety, and to be honest I can see both sides of the argument here. I apologize if my post was worthless in the end of all things, but at least I can say I tried, right?
Cathy said:
Sadly, this isn't an option if you play on a Ladder with a standard rule set. This topic is, afaik, about a Sleep Clause that's present on that Ladder. Being able to play under custom rules outside of the ladder isn't relevant to this discussion.
Personally I think anything but Classic Sleep Clause is being overly pedantic about in-game mechanics. I'm fine with a minor technical difference to the "real" Pokémon in exchange for a complete lack of wins through unintended breaking of Sleep Clause. But it seems I'm relatively alone on this, and I know I don't plan on using Dugtrio to force people to put two of my Pokémon to sleep, or use Sleep Powder twice in a row when Blissey comes in. Therefore, this isn't really going to be relevant for any battles I play (maybe 1 in a 100) and I don't think it's worth overheating for. (not that anything Pokémon related is)
@Philionumbers: the second scenario is somewhat fair game, though I have never ever seen a Roserade using Sleep Powder twice in a row after going Blissey -> Tyranitar when using Kevin's stall team. They always Toxic Spike instead. But, it's theoretically a valid move.
But I don't see how the first one is a significant help to Breloom at all. You say you start Sporing "when its Sleep counter starts getting high", but considering how short sleep is in general in DPP and on, and how significant the chance is of Dragonite waking up before this Sleep counter is "getting high", this doesn't seem to be a big deal. A lot of the time Breloom is wasting opportunities to attack Dragonite by Sporing. Or, personally, I would just switch my Dragonite out and Breloom passed up an opportunity to attack my new switch-in.