(Gen 1) Pokemon Showdown has a Gen 1 playable now!

[Joim]

Hey, guys, so Gen 1 has finally made it to Pokemon Showdown!

By now you can only play it by challenge in a Custom Game, where only the mechanics are enforced, so you'll have to agree on the clauses like gentlemen while playing.

You will need to use the Gen 5 teambuilder, as there's no plans to make a Teambuilder for different gens yet. Items and abilities are automatically deleted (shinies too), EVs and IVs are automatically set to max, so either max them or leave them alone. Basically choose six mons and four moves for each of them and you are ready to go.

The learnsets have been a lot of work, so I might've had a slip, if you see something wrong with it or with any mechanic, feel free to contact me directly or to post in the Report a Bug thread indicating that it's a Gen 1 bug. I'm constantly trying to improve Gen 1 so we might have at least an OU Ladder available in PS, which is basically my "dream".

Have fun!

Edit:
If you are new to this metagame and wish to learn more, I recommend you to learn this, this, and this.

[Aza]

Awesome. I was waiting for this to happen. Good job Joim!

Originally Posted by Fat Joim

By now you can only play it by challenge in a Custom Game, where only the mechanics are enforced, so you'll have to agree on the clauses like gentlemen while playing.

>_>

[phoopes]

Originally Posted by Fat Joim

You will need to use the Gen 5 teambuilder, as there's no plans to make a Teambuilder for different gens yet. Items and abilities are automatically deleted (shinies too), EVs and IVs are automatically set to max, so either max them or leave them alone. Basically choose six mons and four moves for each of them and you are ready to go.

Yeah, just to add onto this a bit: Because the teambuilder is still Gen 5, it may show that some moves are illegal even though they're not. I noticed Mega Drain on Exeggutor and Bubblebeam on Persian, but there are sure to be lots of others. You're still able to use them in battle without any problems, but they still might show as illegal in the teambuilder, that's all.

I never played Gen 1 competitively before, and I'm pretty excited to start. Already learned a bit about the metagame thanks to Joim. If you see my name on PS, don't hesitate to send a challenge my way!

[hay]

Yeah the learnsets were a pain in the ass to do. but hey now ppl can enjoy it. I'm making the gen 2 learnsets for the kanto. once the johto dex is finished aswell as the mechanics ppl have gen 2 to enjoy too :D anyway thank you for gen 1 it's a great meta -mrSmellyfeet100

[Dre89]

So if only the mechanics are enforced, does this mean there are no freeze and sleep clauses? Also does wrap work correctly?

[Joim]

Originally Posted by Fat Dre89

So if only the mechanics are enforced, does this mean there are no freeze and sleep clauses? Also does wrap work correctly?

Freeze clause is not a thing, Sleep clause is not enforced (but can be agreed upon) and Wrap does correct 90% correctly besides a couple of things I'm working into.

[Dre89]

Honestly I'm glad there are no clauses, especially freeze clause. I like being able to play the game with proper mechanics, and it's easy to just ban sleep moves after the first sleep without altering game mechanics.

[locopoke]

Originally Posted by Fat Joim

Freeze clause is not a thing, Sleep clause is not enforced (but can be agreed upon) and Wrap does correct 90% correctly besides a couple of things I'm working into.

Freeze Clause is absolutely necessary for RBY and should be a thing before any serious tournament matches are played on PS(same with Sleep Clause, to a lesser extent).

[Lavos Spawn]

what if we're playing rby like gentlemen, as you suggest, and my opp freezes two of my pokemon? he didn't intend for it to happen, but it did anyways. just one example of why we absolutely require enforced clauses to have real rby games on showdown.

[magic9mushroom]

Originally Posted by Fat locopoke

Freeze Clause is absolutely necessary for RBY and should be a thing before any serious tournament matches are played on PS(same with Sleep Clause, to a lesser extent).

Are you nuts? Sleep is way more game-breaking than freeze, both because Ice Beam/Blizzard have low PP and only a 10% chance of freezing, and because Ice-types cannot be frozen. Most games of RBY have 0 freezes - there are VERY few in which Freeze Clause actually does something.

EDIT: @Lavos Spawn, sure, that can happen. But the fact that it can't be done on purpose means that one can have a meaningful meta without the clause enforced (and I, personally, don't like it). Sleep Clause, however, is utterly required for a viable RBY meta.

[Noblesse Oblige]

Actually, Blizzard has a pretty high chance of causing freeze in gen 1 (30%), is backed by a 90% accuracy and, without an active clause, you could freeze 2 of your opp's Pokémon without much effort.

[Joim]

You're wrong. Blizzard has always had a 10% chance and it's implemented that way.

While I find Sleep Clause necessary, I've never been fond of Freeze Clause. It's luck based and while the normal thing to do with a frozen Pokémon is to let it die or use it to get a Hyper Beam, with Freeze Clause it can be used to prevent, say, a Chansey, from being frozen if a switch made you freeze a 40% HP mon. The metagame is already heavily luck based, I don't see the problem with a 10% secondary status, freeze clause is not really enforced much...

However, I'm totally willing to implement it if the RBY commuity wants it to ladder it on Pokemon Showdown or to use it for tourneys, it takes me literally few minutes to add it.

Keep in mind that right now we can't have clauses because we are still stuck with Custom Game until some problems are weeded out (mainly Bide, Wrap's moves PP reset, and Counter), at least.

[Hipmonlee]

Freeze clause is for pussies.

We never used to have freeze clause, we got by. It's not like removing freeze clause suddenly makes RBY a game that isnt massively luck based anyway.

It'll happen, but sometimes the victim will win anyway, and usually the second freeze is just preventing a long-odds comeback anyway. It doesnt really have an impact on how the game is played, except that you wont try and keep a frozen starmie alive to freeze proof your chansey.

There's nothing absolutely necessary about it, it's just a futile attempt to make RBY more like GSC.

[Joim]

Once we get the ladder up, either to add it or delete it takes a couple of keystrokes, but I guess it deppends on what SPL players want, could we have a healthy discussion about this? It be super cool to have a voting upon Freeze Clause, which is, imho, unnecessary.

[magic9mushroom]

Originally Posted by Fat Noblesse Oblige

Actually, Blizzard has a pretty high chance of causing freeze in gen 1 (30%),

Nope. 10%.

is backed by a 90% accuracy

Which means you have to throw 11 Blizzards on average to get a freeze. Guess how much PP it doesn't have?

and, without an active clause, you could freeze 2 of your opp's Pokémon without much effort.

If your opponent is letting you hit non-statused, non-Ice types with 20-odd Ice Beams, they kinda deserve to get frozen.

Also, you mustn't be throwing Thunder Wave much of anywhere if you're actually planning on two freezes, since paralysing Chansey (or Zam, if you're not using Articuno) basically means you ain't freezin' nothin'. Tauros and Persian are gonna love that.


EDIT: For the record, I'm currently #4 on PO's RBY OU ladder. Not that that means much, but if we're bringing credentials into it, those are mine.

[Golden Gyarados]

I tend to think of freeze clause as more analogous to OHKO clause than the sleep clause. When your Pokemon is frozen, it's done. Sure it could take an explosion or to pivot, or do something else situationally useful, but for all intents and purposes, you fainted a Pokemon even if the attack only did 9% to it.

With OHKO moves, we still ban them even though using them would rely a lot on luck and their successful use multiple times would be pretty unlikely. Freeze status is very similar: relying on freeze as a strategy would rely a lot on luck and its successful use multiple times would be pretty unlikely. Still, it happens.

Besides, the Pokemon-playing community didn't "invent" freeze clause, Nintendo (or Game Freak? whichever) did. I always assumed the clause was first implemented on simulators where possible to match that, not due to an outcry of whining from the gamers themselves. That indicates to me that everyone accepted multiple freezes were game-breaking from day 1. What's changed?

[Dre89]

Freeze clause was created by Nintendo for their official RBY tournaments. It wasn't a mechanic though, I think you just got DQ'd if you froze a second pokemon. If we do put in a freeze clause, I'd rather be a DQ for a second freeze than a mechanic that didn't exist in the games because then we're not playing real RBY and we might as well just fix other mechanics like counter and focus energy.

However, these were for 3v3 battles, and were then implemented only in the Stadium games, whose tournaments were 3v3 too, where a second freeze is much more game-breaking.

I don't see how freeze clause is that broken, or any more luck-based than a lot of other RBY mechanics. If you're actively going for multiple freezes, you're leaving pokemon unstatused, which is a gamble in itself and I don't see how that's a necessarily better strategy.

[Mr.E]

Freeze Clause was first implemented in Stadium.

The chance of multiple freezes is so low that I couldn't give less of a shit whether or not it's implemented. Sleep Clause is another matter because sleep is always intentional and it kinda changes the way you play it sometimes with slower sleepmons.

[magic9mushroom]

Originally Posted by Fat Golden Gyarados

I tend to think of freeze clause as more analogous to OHKO clause than the sleep clause. When your Pokemon is frozen, it's done. Sure it could take an explosion or to pivot, or do something else situationally useful, but for all intents and purposes, you fainted a Pokemon even if the attack only did 9% to it.

With OHKO moves, we still ban them even though using them would rely a lot on luck and their successful use multiple times would be pretty unlikely. Freeze status is very similar: relying on freeze as a strategy would rely a lot on luck and its successful use multiple times would be pretty unlikely. Still, it happens.

A frozen pokemon can absorb more Ice Beams, though. An OHKOed pokemon can't absorb more OHKO moves. In addition, any other status blocks freeze, but not OHKO. 30% also > 10%.


(All of that said, I don't really think OHKO clause is justified in RBY either, as Sheer Cold doesn't exist and outspeeding blocks it, but we're never going to see eye-to-eye on that.)

[Dre89]

Frozen pokemon can also relieve spc drops, serve as sacrifices to get something in unharmed, and can help in late-game stall wars.

Interesting thing about OHKOs is that paralysis would be more common, which would in turn would lower the amount of freezes.

[Hipmonlee]

OHKO ban I can understand.. I mean on one hand I dont care, but on the other hand, OHKOs are pretty stupid.

There used to be an OHKO clause in FBMT I kinda liked, where it was effectively the same as sleep clause. You kill one then you cant use any more OHKOs. Dont use this in RBY though, its just an anecdote.

[Joim]

Shameless bump:
Generation 1 now has an OU beta ladder. I have banned all partial trapping moves until they work 100%, and I need some changes on the core (that's why it's taken a while besides my holidays). Feel free to play and I will fix all bugs found as soon as possible (starting with partial trapping moves).

Have fun!

[Dre89]

Any idea when the wrap mechanics will be ready to be implemented?

Also did freeze clause get implemented on the ladder?

[Joim]

Freeze Clause, not for now.
I can't really know when partial trapping will be done, probably when both other PS programmers and I have free time to fix it. It's delicate because the core of the app has to be changed :/

[Aerodactyl Legend]

Freeze is something out of a player's control, unlike Sleep. Despite how gamebreaking it is (just the status, not the Ice moves or strategy), I don't really know if a clause is necessary (outside of tournaments).