PS Sleep Clause [Showdown]

***Zarel**** · Nov 1st, 2011, 2:57:48 AM

This has been brought up before:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81185

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62701

We need to decide on a Sleep Clause for Showdown. I am not going to consider cartridge-incompatible Sleep Clauses at this point, but the following three are cartridge-compatible:

1. Cathy's Sleep Clause: You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves.

2. Modified eric the espeon's Sleep Clause: If your opponent has a pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves, you lose if you use a move that can cause sleep, unless you are forced into it. In a simulator, such a move would be grayed out, since clicking it would be equivalent to clicking the Forfeit button.

3. Modified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon asleep, and the most recent of those pokemon was put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into.

4. Remodified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, two of your opponent's pokemon were put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into, and neither have had their sleep been removed since then.

Definitions:

A move you were "forced into" is a move you must use because all other moves are disabled (by Choice, Encore, or some combination of Taunt, Disable, Torment, and lack of PP) and you cannot switch (by trapping moves, trapping abilities, Ingrain, or having all other pokemon be fainted).

A move you used includes moves called by Metronome, Sleep Talk, Assist, Me First, or Copycat. It does not include Magic Coat or Magic Bounce.

A move that can cause sleep is a move that, if used against a perfectly healthy pokemon with no relevant items or abilities, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy.

I prefer #2, but most people seem to want #3. Discuss.

(Also, if PR is the wrong place to put this, please move.)

Firestorm · Nov 1st, 2011, 3:25:32 AM

I prefer Method #1.

That's the method I played by when I was still playing DP OU (I almost exclusively played on WiFi). I distinctly remember a few cases where I had to weigh the risk of breaking sleep clause (and losing) or not against a sleeping Blissey. Natural Cure = Win. Serene Grace = Lose. In some of those cases, the risk was well worth it because I would have lost for sure if I didn't attempt the sleep. In those cases, Method #2 would cause me to lose.

#3 is okay too if you can find all the exception cases.

**Seven Deadly Sins** · Nov 1st, 2011, 4:09:39 AM

I absolutely don't want #2 for the same reason that Firestorm brought up. #3 would be preferable but #1 is simplest.

TheFourthChaser · Nov 1st, 2011, 4:40:41 AM

I'm liking #3 even though atm I can only think of one example where #3>#2. In a hypothetical battle where Meloetta has been released and #2 is the choice of Sleep Clause there can be times when Meloetta cannot transform into Meloetta-S because a member of the opponent's team is already asleep. Relic Song, Meloetta's transformation attack with a chance of Sleep, cannot be chosen and the whole battle altered from there, if the user wants to take the risk of losing the game to transform I think the option should be there.

#1 is my least favorite because it mentions nothing about force. Sleep Clause should not be made so that it's possible to get your opponent to break it causing them to lose, that just sounds like a terribly stupid thing to me.

Innocent Criminal · Nov 1st, 2011, 6:27:21 AM

Definitely not #1 because this happened to me just a few days ago :

...

The current Sleep Clause is wrong because I shouldn't have been able to win by setting up on something locked in a sleep-inducing move, but I most definitely shouldn't be granted an auto-win because of it. Furthermore, when DW Breloom is released, there will most certainly be people trying out choiced sets with Spore, making it much more likely to happen. Not to mention that Quagsire has Yawn as a primary option on 2/3 of its sets and is outsped by any decent Wobbuffet, making this move pretty much an auto-lose against Wobb players.

I assume that by #3, you implied "You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon asleep by one of your moves, and the most recent of those pokemon was put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into." If so, I'd support #3 as well for the same reason as Firestorm, sleeping a Serene Grace user happens commonly enough to warrant a little complexity.

Darkmalice · Nov 1st, 2011, 9:08:21 AM

#3 should be implemented.

#1 and #2 create alternate win conditions that can be abused compared to a metagame without sleep. Innocent's Criminal log shows why. #1 allows you to lock your opponent into a sleep move, which can be abused by letting a 2nd of your Pokemon get put to sleep, forcing your opponent to sleep it and hence lose. #2 means sleep moves are effectively useless when locked into, making it a waste of a turn so that Pokemon can set up on it, and in Firestorm's example, #2 limits move options, and move options can also be the determining factor of who wins the game. #3 does not have these alternative win conditions unless you purposely try to break sleep clause or risk trying to break it (see Firestorm's case again).

**capefeather** · Nov 1st, 2011, 10:37:48 AM

Heh, I was actually considering a couple of suggestions pertaining to this topic, so this is pretty good timing.

I would prefer something like #2. I believe that the sleep clause should not factor into risk management at all, because it's not a game mechanic. I mean, sure, there are examples of games in which rule-breaking is an integral part (fighting games with rings, soccer), but I think that that kind of thing is unavoidable in those examples, and in soccer there certainly is no way to lose the game immediately by breaking a rule. I recall Hipmonlee posting a more heuristic definition of the sleep clause, in which you cannot willingly place an opponent to sleep after having done so in the past (and said status is still in effect). I think that a small modification to this is the best goal:

If an opposing Pokémon is asleep as a consequence of intention by the player, then the player is not allowed to select a move intending to have two opposing Pokémon asleep, unless forced to do so.

I think that this ultimately would require a distinction of intentional sleep from unintentional sleep. But what constitutes intentional sleep? Perhaps some examples are in order.

- Rest, Effect Spore and Relic Song are pretty obviously unintentional (as in, the opponent didn't "intend" it).

- Sleep moves would usually be intentional, but if the opposing active Pokémon may have Natural Cure, it would be unintentional, in that you'd be allowed to select a sleep move against, say, a sleeping Blissey.

- Reflected sleep moves (by Magic Coat / Magic Bounce) would be unintentional because there would be no guarantee that the opponent would use a sleep move unless it got Encore trapped (pathological example that probably shouldn't be bothered with, but could if there's a pressing need).

That's all I can think of at the moment, but I think you get the idea. I think that most of the pathological examples should be covered, leaving maybe the really, really pathological ones.

***RBG**** · Nov 1st, 2011, 10:45:25 AM

Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't it be possible to test all those exceptions (in #3) in Pokemon Battle Revolution to see what Nintendo's stance on them is?

Delta 2777 · Nov 1st, 2011, 11:47:01 AM

I like #3 (although I assume you meant to clarify that both of the opponent's sleeping Pokemon were put to sleep by your moves)

#2 can be confusing for a few reasons, primarily because you can't actually "disallow" a Pokemon from using a move in-game, but say for example you used Spore on a Blissey. Everybody knows Blissey usually runs Natural Cure, but what if this Blissey is running its alternative ability... Would Spore be disallowed that turn or not? Also TFC's reason.

#3 is good because you can still use the move and, in the above situation, you can risk whether Blissey is running Natural Cure or Serene Grace if you choose to do so. Ideally you would get a warning message when you use a sleep move and your opponent already has a sleeping Pokemon (and you're not forced into it) before using a sleep move (this also helps prevent misclicks).

I don't like #1 because it makes for another forced win condition that can be abused and is in my opinion against the spirit of Pokemon. (John switched in Wobbuffett, foe's Bronzong used Hypnosis, but it missed. Wobbuffet uses Encore, switches next turn, John wins).

Snunch · Nov 1st, 2011, 1:14:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat aesoft

3. Modified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon asleep, and the most recent of those pokemon was put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into.

Seems like you could run into trouble with Rest. Pokemon A uses Rest and switches out, later you spore Pokemon B. In this situation you would lose. I'd support #3 if this loophole was closed.

**kd24** · Nov 1st, 2011, 2:49:35 PM

i really dont see whats wrong with just keeping sleep clause as "this move failed because of sleep clause" where more than 1 pokemon cant be asleep because of an opponents move.

however to avoid the stupidity of 1 (which can be easily abused) and assuming we add distinctions for 2 (the unintentional breaking sleep clause wouldn't count), then i guess im for 2.

**Elevator Music** · Nov 1st, 2011, 5:14:31 PM

I agree with Delta/Snunch/#3 supporters, it seems to be the best option.

(though I'm fine with leaving stuff as it too I guess.....)

Hipmonlee · Nov 1st, 2011, 5:31:28 PM

By disallowed it means you cant select it?

Because you do need to be able to select it if you are facing a sleeping natural cure blissey for example.

Also case three needs to specify that the first sleeping pokemon was slept by you as well.

eric the espeon · Nov 1st, 2011, 8:41:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Firestorm

I prefer Method #1.

That's the method I played by when I was still playing DP OU (I almost exclusively played on WiFi). I distinctly remember a few cases where I had to weigh the risk of breaking sleep clause (and losing) or not against a sleeping Blissey. Natural Cure = Win. Serene Grace = Lose. In some of those cases, the risk was well worth it because I would have lost for sure if I didn't attempt the sleep. In those cases, Method #2 would cause me to lose.

#3 is okay too if you can find all the exception cases.

I do not think it's reasonable to have a rule which you can risk breaking in order for a better chance of winning, it's like saying it's ok to act up an injury because there's a chance the ref will miss it and you'll do better. It introduces an extra, purely chance based, win condition. It encourages messing with the metagame because a smart player could start changing their Blissey abilities to catch out foes and get instant wins. The idea that it's fine to fire off sleep moves in the hope you won't end with 2 foes asleep is based on the current, mechanically incorrect, sleep clause. I do not see weighing the risks of breaking rules and gambling on an instant extra win condition as a remotely healthy part of the game, it's pushing hard against good adherence even if it's not technically against mechanics.

Quote:

#2 can be confusing for a few reasons, primarily because you can't actually "disallow" a Pokemon from using a move in-game, but say for example you used Spore on a Blissey. Everybody knows Blissey usually runs Natural Cure, but what if this Blissey is running its alternative ability... Would Spore be disallowed that turn or not? Also TFC's reason.

Disallowing a move is acceptable imo. Even though you cannot stop people picking it ingame, you can say if you pick this you forfeit the match. Preventing it in a simulator is then just a matter of convenience, preventing people picking the move which is by definition the worst: automatic loss. You could even not fully disallow it, and instead have a popup saying "if you pick this move, you lose" and let them chose for themselves.

And to clarify how #2 works: You could not assume Natural Cure (just as you could not assume Lum or Chesto Berry), one of the foe's Pokémon would already be asleep, so you could not use a sleep move. There is no element of chance to it, and no extra win condition. You would simply and straightforwardly not be permitted to use the sleep move, unless there was no other move available to you at all. This would not encourage the use of inefficient sets to exploit extra win conditions generated by both other suggested implementations (though only #1 is forcible, #3 still allows for gambling with the rules).

Edit: Two notes, the version in the OP is slightly modified from my original idea (particularly how it handles called moves), but for the record I prefer aesoft's version to my original due to simplicity and the lack of corner cases like using Sleep Talk to give a high chance to sleep multiple foes. Secondly, neither eric nor espeon is capitalized in my username.

Edit2: @RBG: The current PO sleep clause (sleep moves fail to sleep when you've put a foe to sleep already) is PBR's, as I understand it. The reason it's not mechanically accurate is not that it never existed, but it's not possible to play with using 5th gen pokes/mechanics (or Rotom-A/Giratine-O/Shaymin-S in 4th gen).

**Seven Deadly Sins** · Nov 1st, 2011, 9:48:56 PM

The problem here with #2 is that it disallows a number of viable strategies which would *not* result in multiple Pokemon asleep, which is the intent of Sleep Clause in the first place. The most notable one is of course gambling that Blissey is Natural Cure when it switches out and you use a sleep move, but there are a couple of others that I can think of. Breloom has a substitute up against something like Salamence (which can take a Focus Punch), and Salamence is asleep. Say the Mence has been asleep for 2 turns. Likelihood has it that it'll wake up next turn, and Breloom wants to put it back to sleep as it breaks its sub. While it would be "risky" under #1, using #2 it would simply never be allowed, which I consider to be a problem. There are other things. What if the other Pokemon has a Lum or Chesto berry as it switches in? Maybe he received Lum Berry when he tricked another item onto one of my Pokemon (i've had scarf tricked onto my dd/sd lum berry hax to stop its setup), and I know that, and want to remove the berry so I can Toxic it later and win. Sleep Clause isn't broken in that case, since there aren't two Pokemon asleep. What should matter is the end result: putting 2 Pokemon to sleep is what is broken, and thus "putting 2 Pokemon to sleep" is what should be banned, not "making a move which may result in putting 2 Pokemon to sleep if the opponent either has / does not have a certain ability or item and they switch".

(also claiming that the mindset only exists because of simulator play is silly because as Firestorm noted his experience is cartridge-based on wifi, where #1 is the sleep clause that is used, and quite honestly sets a very strong precedent for #1 being what we implement)

***Zarel**** · Nov 1st, 2011, 10:20:57 PM

For clarity, I've rewritten #2:

2. Modified eric the espeon's Sleep Clause: If your opponent has a pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves, you lose if you use a move that can cause sleep, unless you are forced into it. In a simulator, such a move would be grayed out, since clicking it would be equivalent to clicking the Forfeit button.

Definitions:

A move that can cause sleep is a move that, from the perspective of its user assuming no knowledge of the opponent's abilities/items/movesets/team, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy.

Hipmonlee · Nov 1st, 2011, 10:25:32 PM

There may be situations where a person does know if the opponent's blissey has natural cure that the server is unaware of. For example, rematches with the same team.

**Seven Deadly Sins** · Nov 1st, 2011, 10:28:32 PM

Also the #pokemon tournament, which reveals both teams fully before the game starts, or other tournaments of the like. Alternately, if the Blissey was statused earlier in the match and is no longer when it comes back in. It's not feasible to assume that "the player has no knowledge" for sleep clause.

***Zarel**** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:24:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Delta 2777

#2 can be confusing for a few reasons, primarily because you can't actually "disallow" a Pokemon from using a move in-game, but say for example you used Spore on a Blissey. Everybody knows Blissey usually runs Natural Cure, but what if this Blissey is running its alternative ability... Would Spore be disallowed that turn or not? Also TFC's reason.

My rephrased #2 should clarify all these ambiguities. Spore would indeed be disallowed in this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Snunch

Seems like you could run into trouble with Rest. Pokemon A uses Rest and switches out, later you spore Pokemon B. In this situation you would lose. I'd support #3 if this loophole was closed.

I wouldn't call this a loophole; it's intentional.

I do hear that a lot of you would prefer to be able to Spore someone after they've used Rest. So here's a #4 for you guys to discuss:

4. Remodified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, two of your opponent's pokemon were put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into, and neither have had their sleep been removed since then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat kd24

i really dont see whats wrong with just keeping sleep clause as "this move failed because of sleep clause" where more than 1 pokemon cant be asleep because of an opponents move.

That would create a game that can't be played on cartridges. That "Classic Sleep Clause" will be supported, but I am opposed to it being on for ladder battles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Hipmonlee

There may be situations where a person does know if the opponent's blissey has natural cure that the server is unaware of. For example, rematches with the same team.

Technically, a rematch with a "same" team cannot guarantee that it's actually the "same" team. A better example would be a Blissey that's already switched out and back in and is known to have Natural Cure (alternatively, it's raining and you're facing a Phione).

This is why "assuming no knowledge of the opponent's abilities/items/movesets/team" is included in the definition.

In other words, you can't use Spore even if the opposing pokemon is a sleeping Pokemon known to have Natural Cure - this makes the code simpler and the rules easier to remember.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

Also the #pokemon tournament, which reveals both teams fully before the game starts, or other tournaments of the like. Alternately, if the Blissey was statused earlier in the match and is no longer when it comes back in. It's not feasible to assume that "the player has no knowledge" for sleep clause.

I don't see why it's not feasible to assume that. The assumption may not be true, but that's why it's called an assumption. It can still be made for the purposes of the Sleep Clause calculation.

eric the espeon · Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:38:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

The problem here with #2 is that it disallows a number of viable strategies which would *not* result in multiple Pokemon asleep, which is the intent of Sleep Clause in the first place. The most notable one is of course gambling that Blissey is Natural Cure when it switches out and you use a sleep move, but there are a couple of others that I can think of. <example>

The key here is calling gambling on not breaking rules and incurring an automatic loss due to an extra win condition based on unreliable information a "viable strategy". It is a very safe strategy under the current clause, which has lead to it being expected as fine and "viable", and I think distorted the metagame slightly by making sleep moves far safer than they should be against some foes. Changing to a rule which allows players to gamble with an external win condition seems like not much more than an attempt to preserve a strategy, in a much riskier form, which should not necessarily have ever have been considered legal or viable. Legal now does not mean legal under the system which infringes least on adherence and simplicity while carrying out it's function.

Quote:

Sleep Clause isn't broken in that case, since there aren't two Pokemon asleep. What should matter is the end result: putting 2 Pokemon to sleep is what is broken, and thus "putting 2 Pokemon to sleep" is what should be banned, not "making a move which may result in putting 2 Pokemon to sleep if the opponent either has / does not have a certain ability or item and they switch".

And here's the function. You are incorrect to say the Sleep Clause is not broken, you mean #1 and #3 are not broken (and perhaps PBR, though I'm not sure of the interaction with sleep curing berries since that would require at least momentarily for two 'mons to be asleep). There is no single sleep clause. Sleep clause is not to prevent two Pokémon from falling asleep, Sleep Clause is to prevent sleep being too powerful. It is based on clauses which exist in other games, but must be modified and redefined to fit 5th gen mechanics. That modification and redefinition is entirely up to us, but should be based around a few principles, and one of those should, in my opinion, be to avoid introducing artificial win conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Hipmonlee

There may be situations where a person does know if the opponent's blissey has natural cure that the server is unaware of. For example, rematches with the same team.

Technically, the other player could change the ability. I know that in ladders with low activity switching between Levitate and Heatproof Bronzor to avoid the worst of team knowledge has happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

Also the #pokemon tournament, which reveals both teams fully before the game starts, or other tournaments of the like. Alternately, if the Blissey was statused earlier in the match and is no longer when it comes back in. It's not feasible to assume that "the player has no knowledge" for sleep clause.

You misunderstand I think, the clause does not require the players to not know, it acts as if they do not for the sake of simplicity and clarity (you can't use sleeping moves if you've already put something to sleep, nice and simple), and disallows things which break it. This is different from the other versions of the sleep clause, but it is entirely consistent with the goal of the sleep clause and the break from familiarity is a small price to pay to avoid great complexity (defining knowledge of a move's ability to sleep a second 'mon) or the need for extra win conditions (every other proposed version of the clause).

@aesoft: Agreeing with the clarification.

***Zarel**** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:44:29 AM

In this post, I'm going to consolidate an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of #2 and #4. #1 and #3 are similar enough to #4 that you guys can come to your own conclusions.

DISADVANTAGES OF MODIFIED ETE (#2):
- Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon, even if the probability is very high.
- Is not used in standard cartridge WiFi play.

DISADVANTAGES OF REMODIFIED CATHY (#4):
- Makes it possible to unintentionally end the game before either player has 6 fainted pokemon.
- Introduces an element of luck into whether or not a rule will be broken.

**Seven Deadly Sins** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 2:14:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat eric the espeon

There is no single sleep clause. Sleep clause is not to prevent two Pokémon from falling asleep, Sleep Clause is to prevent sleep being too powerful.

That's the problem. What's "broken" is inflicting sleep on multiple Pokemon simultaneously. Not the act of using the move, but the end result of the move. And if the end result of the move doesn't result in the "broken" situation (2 Pokemon put to sleep by the opponent at the same time), there's no reason to disallow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat eric the espeon

You misunderstand I think, the clause does not require the players to not know, it acts as if they do not for the sake of simplicity and clarity (you can't use sleeping moves if you've already put something to sleep, nice and simple), and disallows things which break it. This is different from the other versions of the sleep clause, but it is entirely consistent with the goal of the sleep clause and the break from familiarity is a small price to pay to avoid great complexity (defining knowledge of a move's ability to sleep a second 'mon) or the need for extra win conditions (every other proposed version of the clause).

Why would you disallow people from taking advantage of knowledge that they have in order to perform a move that is guaranteed to not produce the "broken result" in the game? I'd take a hard to abuse rule that allows the players freedom over a non-abuseable rule that restricts legitimate strategies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat aesoft

In this post, I'm going to consolidate an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of #2 and #4. #1 and #3 are similar enough to #4 that you guys can come to your own conclusions.

DISADVANTAGES OF MODIFIED ETE (#2):
- Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon, even if the probability is very high.
- Is not used in standard cartridge WiFi play.

DISADVANTAGES OF REMODIFIED CATHY (#4):
- Makes it possible to unintentionally end the game before either player has 6 fainted pokemon.
- Introduces an element of luck into whether or not a rule will be broken.

For #4, Painting the element as "luck" is questionable. Players don't flip coins to make decisions. If you want to say "introduces an element of risk", fine, though that's much less questionable as a con. As for the first "disadvantage", if you're referring to misclicks, that's just as much a problem even with moves that don't violate Sleep Clause, and usually equally catastrophic.

As an addendum, I'd like to make one thing official: the "intent" of Sleep Clause. From how I see it, it's basically this:

Sleep as a status is so powerful that limiting the number of Pokemon a player can put to sleep at the same time is necessary for the balance of the game.

Given that, we reach the concept of the "broken state", which is that having two (or more) Pokemon asleep at the same time is "broken". The issue that then results is how to determine when the rule is broken: when the sleep takes effect, or simply when it's attempted. #2 attempts to enforce the latter, all others enforce the former. If I was going to rephrase the cons you put, it would look more like this:

DISADVANTAGES OF MODIFIED ETE (#2):
- Disallows moves that the user knows would have a 0% chance of resulting in multiple sleeping Pokemon (sleep move on a sleeping known Natural Cure Pokemon, sleep move when the user knows the opponent's other Pokemon carries a sleep-healing item, sleep move when all of the opponent's other pokemon are statused already)
- Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon.
- Assumes user has 0 knowledge of the opposing team, when this may not be the case for a number of reasons, especially tournaments
- Is not used in standard cartridge WiFi play.

DISADVANTAGES OF REMODIFIED CATHY (#4):
- Makes it possible to unintentionally end the game before either player has 6 fainted pokemon.
- Introduces an element of risk into whether or not a rule will be broken.

notes:
- mentioned situations where the move is guaranteed to not inflict second sleep (most notable)
- removed reference to probability of inflicting sleep, since probability is situation dependent and can't really be determined
- mentioned note about assumption of 0 information- disallowing players from using information at their disposal is undesireable
- replaced "luck" with risk: luck would be if we implemented freeze clause like this, since freeze is 100% luck-based- the only situation in which luck might be present is using relic song, which is competitively irrelevant

**Taylor** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 5:04:27 AM

freeze clause prevents you from freezing two pokemon at the same time because it would be competitively unfair/broken, like it would be if you were to send two pokemon to sleep. if that is the case then it's the sheer count of incapacitating the opponents' team that begs for this clause to be intact and prevent "brokeness".

1) Hypnosis, etc. fails if its currently in effect through your sleep inducing move.

if they switch in blissey to absorb my sleep move, i am looking to induce the next 'mon brought in by my opponent because id safely assume that they have natural cure. the move should simply fail/succeed depending on that ability; not punish the player for wanting to play the next move perfect. after all, it is the players' advantage that he earned and if i have successfully put their pokemon to sleep, my next move should not hold any baring on the outcome of the whole battle because of a clause that prosecutes as much as it does prevent.

forgive me if im rambling a bit what poses the biggest worry amongst other users who are questioning the clauses initial ruling?

***Zarel**** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 6:24:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

That's the problem. What's "broken" is inflicting sleep on multiple Pokemon simultaneously. Not the act of using the move, but the end result of the move. And if the end result of the move doesn't result in the "broken" situation (2 Pokemon put to sleep by the opponent at the same time), there's no reason to disallow it.

Other than Sleep Clause, bans have always been bans of decisions, not the results of those decisions.

What about, instead of banning Garchomp, we just made Garchomp OU and made a rule that you lose when two 100% accuracy moves miss against Garchomp? Or instead of banning Moody, we make you lose if Moody gets you to +2 Evasion? Those would also ban the "broken" situation.

Modified Cathy isn't a rule, it's a game mechanic - an artificially induced loss condition. And while there's nothing wrong with introducing new game mechanics, I believe that should be done in CAP, not in OU.

And that's my second objection to Sleep Clause #4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

As for the first "disadvantage", if you're referring to misclicks, that's just as much a problem even with moves that don't violate Sleep Clause, and usually equally catastrophic.

I'm not referring to misclicks, I'm referring to mispredicts and hax.

In your average fighting game, there's an upper bound on how much a combo can do, usually around 40%, which is the maximum you can be punished for any given mispredict.

In an FPS, if you mess up, the worst you can mess up is that your opponent gets one more kill. You don't lose the entire game.

In baseball, if you mess up, the worst that can happen is that you get an out, or the opposing team gets a maximum of four points (with the bases loaded).

In Pokemon, with either no sleep clause, Classic Sleep Clause, or eric the espeon's Sleep Clause, the worst that you can mispredict or be subject to hax from is that one of your pokemon faints (well, you can use a choiced Normal/Fighting move as someone switches in DW Chandelure and give them infinite time to set up, but that's why I don't like DW Chandelure).

So not only are you introducing a new game mechanic, but you're introducing a new game mechanic that punishes bad decisions (and allows players to take risks) in a way far more severe than was previously possible in Pokemon, or even most other games.

And that's my first objection to Sleep Clause #4.

In conclusion, Sleep Clause #4 violates the "Adherence" property of Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Seven Deadly Sins

DISADVANTAGES OF MODIFIED ETE (#2):
- Disallows moves that the user knows would have a 0% chance of resulting in multiple sleeping Pokemon (sleep move on a sleeping known Natural Cure Pokemon, sleep move when the user knows the opponent's other Pokemon carries a sleep-healing item, sleep move when all of the opponent's other pokemon are statused already)
- Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon.
- Assumes user has 0 knowledge of the opposing team, when this may not be the case for a number of reasons, especially tournaments

Also, this is just ridiculous; these are the exact same disadvantage. I expect better of you, SDS. :|

**Seven Deadly Sins** · Nov 2nd, 2011, 7:08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat aesoft

Also, this is just ridiculous; these are the exact same disadvantage. I expect better of you, SDS. :|

I beg to differ. There is a VERY distinct difference between preventing something with "potential risk" and something that the player knows has absolutely 0 risk of inflicting multiple Sleeps. In the case of, for example, the opponent being down to an active sleeping Pokemon (which is liable to wake up next turn) and a toxiced Gliscor, there is literally 0 chance that a sleep move used will inflict a second simultaneous sleep, yet under clause #2, it would be disallowed. This is very distinct from, say, the possibility that Blissey is Serene Grace, or the possibility that they switch out when you use a Sleep move rather than stay in. One has literally 0 risk, one has potential risk, and differentiating between the two is important. As for the third part, I find it important to accent the fact that the base assumption (player knows nothing about opponent's team) is sometimes intentionally untrue and also often entirely inaccurate considering the player's ability (and designed aim) to increase how much they know about the opposing team.

You may look at them as different sides of the same coin, but they are indeed VERY distinct points. The fact that #2 depends on an appraisal of player knowledge that is never guaranteed to be anything specific is a major problem.

Also a more accurate statement which is more applicable to something like Wi-Fi is something more like the following:

4. Remodified Cathy: A player must forfeit if, at the end of his or her turn, two of the opponent's pokemon were put to sleep by a move he or she used but were not forced into, and neither have had their sleep been removed since then.

Or even if you wanted to define it further:

4. Remodified Cathy: If a player has put an opponent's Pokemon to sleep, and that Pokemon is still asleep, he or she may not put a second Pokemon to sleep unless he or she has no other legal moves available.

With, of course, punishment for breaking this rule being disqualification.

Also, I think you underestimate the negative effect of a misclick on high level play- very rarely does a misclick not have an extreme adverse effect on the player. The fact that a misclick with any implementation of Sleep Clause leads to instant forfeiture rather than a slow death due to losing an important Pokemon is pretty much just a technicality. On top of that the potential for misclicks that instantly end the game does exist on the cartridge, and is something cartridge players have to deal with as well, except with no Undo button. Finally, if the fear is that great, you can implement a "are you sure" where the person has to confirm their move if it has the potential to break Sleep Clause. By explicitly defining it as a rule rather than a "win/lose condition" and noting that any real adverse side effects that may exist (potential for misclicks, need for risk-based prediction) are already inherent in the game and punished significantly regardless of the implementation of Sleep Clause, the "disadvantages" of option #4 are practically nonexistant.

Nov 1st, 2011, 6:27:21 AM	#5
Innocent Criminal Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 138 Paris, France	Definitely not #1 because this happened to me just a few days ago : ... Start of turn 16 Salamence is confused! It hurt itself in its confusion! Salamence lost 110 HP! (33% of its health) The foe's Tangrowth used Hidden Power! It's super effective! Salamence lost 54 HP! (16% of its health) Salamence fainted! The sandstorm rages! The foe's Tangrowth is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Tangrowth restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Ploufei sent out Wobbuffet! Start of turn 17 The foe's Tangrowth used Sleep Powder! The attack of the foe's Tangrowth missed! Wobbuffet used Encore! The foe's Tangrowth received an encore! The sandstorm rages! The foe's Tangrowth is buffeted by the sandstorm! Wobbuffet is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Tangrowth restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Wobbuffet restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Start of turn 18 The foe's Tangrowth used Sleep Powder! Wobbuffet fell asleep! Wobbuffet is fast asleep! The sandstorm rages! The foe's Tangrowth is buffeted by the sandstorm! Wobbuffet is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Tangrowth restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Wobbuffet restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Start of turn 19 Ploufei called Wobbuffet back! Ploufei sent out Cloyster! The foe's Tangrowth used Sleep Powder! Sleep Clause prevented the sleep inducing effect of the move from working. The sandstorm rages! Cloyster is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Tangrowth is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Tangrowth restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Start of turn 20 Epic Hax Gay called Tangrowth back! Epic Hax Gay sent out Starmie! Pointed stones dug into the foe's Starmie! Cloyster used Shell Smash! Cloyster's Defense fell! Cloyster's Sp. Def. fell! Cloyster's Attack sharply rose! Cloyster's Sp. Att. sharply rose! Cloyster's Speed sharply rose! The sandstorm rages! Cloyster is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Starmie is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Starmie restored a little HP using its Leftovers! Start of turn 21 Cloyster used Rock Blast! The foe's Starmie lost 23% of its health! The foe's Starmie lost 20% of its health! The foe's Starmie lost 24% of its health! The foe's Starmie lost 19% of its health! The foe's Starmie fainted! Hit 4 times! Cloyster is hurt by its Life Orb! The sandstorm rages! Cloyster is buffeted by the sandstorm! Epic Hax Gay sent out Tangrowth! Pointed stones dug into the foe's Tangrowth! Start of turn 22 Cloyster used Icicle Spear! It's super effective! The foe's Tangrowth lost 30% of its health! The foe's Tangrowth lost 30% of its health! The foe's Tangrowth lost 27% of its health! The foe's Tangrowth fainted! Hit 3 times! Cloyster is hurt by its Life Orb! The sandstorm rages! Cloyster is buffeted by the sandstorm! Epic Hax Gay sent out Gliscor! Pointed stones dug into the foe's Gliscor! Start of turn 23 The foe's Gliscor used Protect! The foe's Gliscor protected itself! Cloyster used Icicle Spear! The foe's Gliscor protected itself! The sandstorm rages! Cloyster is buffeted by the sandstorm! The foe's Gliscor restored HP using its Poison Heal! forfeit The current Sleep Clause is wrong because I shouldn't have been able to win by setting up on something locked in a sleep-inducing move, but I most definitely shouldn't be granted an auto-win because of it. Furthermore, when DW Breloom is released, there will most certainly be people trying out choiced sets with Spore, making it much more likely to happen. Not to mention that Quagsire has Yawn as a primary option on 2/3 of its sets and is outsped by any decent Wobbuffet, making this move pretty much an auto-lose against Wobb players. I assume that by #3, you implied "You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon asleep by one of your moves, and the most recent of those pokemon was put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into." If so, I'd support #3 as well for the same reason as Firestorm, sleeping a Serene Grace user happens commonly enough to warrant a little complexity.

Nov 1st, 2011, 9:08:21 AM	#6
Darkmalice Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,176 Adelaide, Australia	#3 should be implemented. #1 and #2 create alternate win conditions that can be abused compared to a metagame without sleep. Innocent's Criminal log shows why. #1 allows you to lock your opponent into a sleep move, which can be abused by letting a 2nd of your Pokemon get put to sleep, forcing your opponent to sleep it and hence lose. #2 means sleep moves are effectively useless when locked into, making it a waste of a turn so that Pokemon can set up on it, and in Firestorm's example, #2 limits move options, and move options can also be the determining factor of who wins the game. #3 does not have these alternative win conditions unless you purposely try to break sleep clause or risk trying to break it (see Firestorm's case again). __________________ Wanna play Doubles? Check it out here! Let's make this metagame official!

Nov 1st, 2011, 10:37:48 AM	#7
capefeather hey, even pirates need attorneys Moderator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,610 especially internet pirates	Heh, I was actually considering a couple of suggestions pertaining to this topic, so this is pretty good timing. I would prefer something like #2. I believe that the sleep clause should not factor into risk management at all, because it's not a game mechanic. I mean, sure, there are examples of games in which rule-breaking is an integral part (fighting games with rings, soccer), but I think that that kind of thing is unavoidable in those examples, and in soccer there certainly is no way to lose the game immediately by breaking a rule. I recall Hipmonlee posting a more heuristic definition of the sleep clause, in which you cannot willingly place an opponent to sleep after having done so in the past (and said status is still in effect). I think that a small modification to this is the best goal: If an opposing Pokémon is asleep as a consequence of intention by the player, then the player is not allowed to select a move intending to have two opposing Pokémon asleep, unless forced to do so. I think that this ultimately would require a distinction of intentional sleep from unintentional sleep. But what constitutes intentional sleep? Perhaps some examples are in order. - Rest, Effect Spore and Relic Song are pretty obviously unintentional (as in, the opponent didn't "intend" it). - Sleep moves would usually be intentional, but if the opposing active Pokémon may have Natural Cure, it would be unintentional, in that you'd be allowed to select a sleep move against, say, a sleeping Blissey. - Reflected sleep moves (by Magic Coat / Magic Bounce) would be unintentional because there would be no guarantee that the opponent would use a sleep move unless it got Encore trapped (pathological example that probably shouldn't be bothered with, but could if there's a pressing need). That's all I can think of at the moment, but I think you get the idea. I think that most of the pathological examples should be covered, leaving maybe the really, really pathological ones. __________________ If we cannot take joy in things that are merely real, our lives will always be empty. <+joshe> im a registered sex offender for up to calc 3 <+Reflect_Suicune> i was thining of fucking jellicent for some reason <DetroitLolcat> I AM AROUSED BY BIMETALLIC CURRENCY!

Nov 1st, 2011, 10:45:25 AM	#8
*RBG It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. Super Moderator** Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,230 Home: Goshen Scout Reservation	Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't it be possible to test all those exceptions (in #3) in Pokemon Battle Revolution to see what Nintendo's stance on them is? __________________ Alder: N, even if we don't understand each other, that's not a reason to reject each other. There are two sides to an argument. Is there one point of view that has all the answers? Give it some thought.

Nov 1st, 2011, 11:47:01 AM	#9
Delta 2777 5% determination, 10% concentration, 85% luck Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,192	I like #3 (although I assume you meant to clarify that both of the opponent's sleeping Pokemon were put to sleep by your moves) #2 can be confusing for a few reasons, primarily because you can't actually "disallow" a Pokemon from using a move in-game, but say for example you used Spore on a Blissey. Everybody knows Blissey usually runs Natural Cure, but what if this Blissey is running its alternative ability... Would Spore be disallowed that turn or not? Also TFC's reason. #3 is good because you can still use the move and, in the above situation, you can risk whether Blissey is running Natural Cure or Serene Grace if you choose to do so. Ideally you would get a warning message when you use a sleep move and your opponent already has a sleeping Pokemon (and you're not forced into it) before using a sleep move (this also helps prevent misclicks). I don't like #1 because it makes for another forced win condition that can be abused and is in my opinion against the spirit of Pokemon. (John switched in Wobbuffett, foe's Bronzong used Hypnosis, but it missed. Wobbuffet uses Encore, switches next turn, John wins). __________________ #lifting on IRC <tito>: delta i never knew u won a smogon tour <tito>: congratz http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...N/9412ad9b.jpg

Nov 1st, 2011, 2:57:48 AM	#1
*Zarel >> BEGIN POSTBIT Super Moderator** Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,130 >> END POSTBIT	PS Sleep Clause [Showdown] This has been brought up before: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81185 http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62701 We need to decide on a Sleep Clause for Showdown. I am not going to consider cartridge-incompatible Sleep Clauses at this point, but the following three are cartridge-compatible: 1. Cathy's Sleep Clause: You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves. 2. Modified eric the espeon's Sleep Clause: If your opponent has a pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves, you lose if you use a move that can cause sleep, unless you are forced into it. In a simulator, such a move would be grayed out, since clicking it would be equivalent to clicking the Forfeit button. 3. Modified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, your opponent has two pokemon asleep, and the most recent of those pokemon was put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into. 4. Remodified Cathy: You lose if, at the end of your turn, two of your opponent's pokemon were put to sleep by a move you used but were not forced into, and neither have had their sleep been removed since then. Definitions: A move you were "forced into" is a move you must use because all other moves are disabled (by Choice, Encore, or some combination of Taunt, Disable, Torment, and lack of PP) and you cannot switch (by trapping moves, trapping abilities, Ingrain, or having all other pokemon be fainted). A move you used includes moves called by Metronome, Sleep Talk, Assist, Me First, or Copycat. It does not include Magic Coat or Magic Bounce. A move that can cause sleep is a move that, if used against a perfectly healthy pokemon with no relevant items or abilities, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy. I prefer #2, but most people seem to want #3. Discuss. (Also, if PR is the wrong place to put this, please move.) __________________ Pokemon Showdown \| Replay player \| No, I am not impressed that you know that my name is Guangcong Luo. The PS website says "Copyright Guangcong Luo" at the bottom, ffs. Last edited by Zarel; Nov 2nd, 2011 at 8:32:05 AM.

Nov 1st, 2011, 3:25:32 AM	#2
Firestorm I did my best, I have no regrets! Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,261 Vancouver, BC	I prefer Method #1. That's the method I played by when I was still playing DP OU (I almost exclusively played on WiFi). I distinctly remember a few cases where I had to weigh the risk of breaking sleep clause (and losing) or not against a sleeping Blissey. Natural Cure = Win. Serene Grace = Lose. In some of those cases, the risk was well worth it because I would have lost for sure if I didn't attempt the sleep. In those cases, Method #2 would cause me to lose. #3 is okay too if you can find all the exception cases. __________________

Nov 1st, 2011, 4:09:39 AM	#3
Seven Deadly Sins :D Moderator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,175	I absolutely don't want #2 for the same reason that Firestorm brought up. #3 would be preferable but #1 is simplest. __________________

Nov 1st, 2011, 2:49:35 PM	#11
kd24 Surprise Mother Fucker Moderator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,769 HOME	i really dont see whats wrong with just keeping sleep clause as "this move failed because of sleep clause" where more than 1 pokemon cant be asleep because of an opponents move. however to avoid the stupidity of 1 (which can be easily abused) and assuming we add distinctions for 2 (the unintentional breaking sleep clause wouldn't count), then i guess im for 2. __________________ My YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLemondrop7

Nov 1st, 2011, 5:14:31 PM	#12
Elevator Music there is actually no underscore in my name Moderator Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,476	I agree with Delta/Snunch/#3 supporters, it seems to be the best option. (though I'm fine with leaving stuff as it too I guess.....) __________________

Nov 1st, 2011, 5:31:28 PM	#13
Hipmonlee Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 7,299	By disallowed it means you cant select it? Because you do need to be able to select it if you are facing a sleeping natural cure blissey for example. Also case three needs to specify that the first sleeping pokemon was slept by you as well.

Nov 1st, 2011, 9:48:56 PM	#15
Seven Deadly Sins :D Moderator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,175	The problem here with #2 is that it disallows a number of viable strategies which would not result in multiple Pokemon asleep, which is the intent of Sleep Clause in the first place. The most notable one is of course gambling that Blissey is Natural Cure when it switches out and you use a sleep move, but there are a couple of others that I can think of. Breloom has a substitute up against something like Salamence (which can take a Focus Punch), and Salamence is asleep. Say the Mence has been asleep for 2 turns. Likelihood has it that it'll wake up next turn, and Breloom wants to put it back to sleep as it breaks its sub. While it would be "risky" under #1, using #2 it would simply never be allowed, which I consider to be a problem. There are other things. What if the other Pokemon has a Lum or Chesto berry as it switches in? Maybe he received Lum Berry when he tricked another item onto one of my Pokemon (i've had scarf tricked onto my dd/sd lum berry hax to stop its setup), and I know that, and want to remove the berry so I can Toxic it later and win. Sleep Clause isn't broken in that case, since there aren't two Pokemon asleep. What should matter is the end result: putting 2 Pokemon to sleep is what is broken, and thus "putting 2 Pokemon to sleep" is what should be banned, not "making a move which may result in putting 2 Pokemon to sleep if the opponent either has / does not have a certain ability or item and they switch". (also claiming that the mindset only exists because of simulator play is silly because as Firestorm noted his experience is cartridge-based on wifi, where #1 is the sleep clause that is used, and quite honestly sets a very strong precedent for #1 being what we implement) __________________

Nov 1st, 2011, 10:20:57 PM	#16
*Zarel >> BEGIN POSTBIT Super Moderator** Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,130 >> END POSTBIT	For clarity, I've rewritten #2: 2. Modified eric the espeon's Sleep Clause: If your opponent has a pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves, you lose if you use a move that can cause sleep, unless you are forced into it. In a simulator, such a move would be grayed out, since clicking it would be equivalent to clicking the Forfeit button. Definitions: A move that can cause sleep is a move that, from the perspective of its user assuming no knowledge of the opponent's abilities/items/movesets/team, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy. __________________ Pokemon Showdown \| Replay player \| No, I am not impressed that you know that my name is Guangcong Luo. The PS website says "Copyright Guangcong Luo" at the bottom, ffs.

Nov 1st, 2011, 10:25:32 PM	#17
Hipmonlee Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 7,299	There may be situations where a person does know if the opponent's blissey has natural cure that the server is unaware of. For example, rematches with the same team.

Nov 1st, 2011, 10:28:32 PM	#18
Seven Deadly Sins :D Moderator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 4,175	Also the #pokemon tournament, which reveals both teams fully before the game starts, or other tournaments of the like. Alternately, if the Blissey was statused earlier in the match and is no longer when it comes back in. It's not feasible to assume that "the player has no knowledge" for sleep clause. __________________

Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:44:29 AM	#21
*Zarel >> BEGIN POSTBIT Super Moderator** Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,130 >> END POSTBIT	In this post, I'm going to consolidate an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of #2 and #4. #1 and #3 are similar enough to #4 that you guys can come to your own conclusions. DISADVANTAGES OF MODIFIED ETE (#2): - Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon, even if the probability is very high. - Is not used in standard cartridge WiFi play. DISADVANTAGES OF REMODIFIED CATHY (#4): - Makes it possible to unintentionally end the game before either player has 6 fainted pokemon. - Introduces an element of luck into whether or not a rule will be broken. __________________ Pokemon Showdown \| Replay player \| No, I am not impressed that you know that my name is Guangcong Luo. The PS website says "Copyright Guangcong Luo" at the bottom, ffs.

Nov 2nd, 2011, 5:04:27 AM	#23
Taylor no.... no i do not look like psyduck Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,989 play?	freeze clause prevents you from freezing two pokemon at the same time because it would be competitively unfair/broken, like it would be if you were to send two pokemon to sleep. if that is the case then it's the sheer count of incapacitating the opponents' team that begs for this clause to be intact and prevent "brokeness". 1) Hypnosis, etc. fails if its currently in effect through your sleep inducing move. if they switch in blissey to absorb my sleep move, i am looking to induce the next 'mon brought in by my opponent because id safely assume that they have natural cure. the move should simply fail/succeed depending on that ability; not punish the player for wanting to play the next move perfect. after all, it is the players' advantage that he earned and if i have successfully put their pokemon to sleep, my next move should not hold any baring on the outcome of the whole battle because of a clause that prosecutes as much as it does prevent. forgive me if im rambling a bit what poses the biggest worry amongst other users who are questioning the clauses initial ruling? Last edited by Taylor; Nov 2nd, 2011 at 10:09:56 AM.