Smogon's Philosophy on Competitive Pokemon (Simulator Mechanics)

[Philip7086]

Before getting started with determining clauses, tiers, or anything really in competitive Pokemon, we need to set some ground rules. In other words, Smogon needs to define what it intends to be in its philosophy. As most people know, a big section of Smogon is based on playing Pokemon using an online simulator. There has been a lot of controversy in the past about how our simulators should function, in terms of mirroring in-game mechanics. Some users firmly believe that Smogon's simulators should strictly follow how Pokemon can be played from the cartridge, while others think that we should be allowed some liberty to tweak certain parts for the sake of improving the game's competitive appeal. The major examples of this are Acid Rain and Sleep Clause functionality. Also, this issue has been debated a LOT in the past, both on IRC and in these topics: Pure Implementation vs Changing the Game, Implementing proper game mechanics, and Cartridge Sleep Clause mechanics. In the past, it has usually just been one admin stepping in and saying "this is how we're doing things", and the discussion ends there. That would be fine, however, if you search through those topics, you'll find that admins have not been consistent with each other in terms of their thoughts. That is why I'm opening this topic up to all of you to post and vote on what you want to see be Smogon's official policy on simulator mechanics. The results of this poll will be Smogon's official stance on simulator mechanics for the entirety of the 5th generation, and possibly forever. I think both parties have good points, and the biggest issue about this topic is the fact that it's an issue itself, and we spend so much time arguing about it without actually seeing any results. Before you dive in head first, though, here are some definitions I want to make clear:

Game Mechanics: This includes everything regarding how Pokemon battles actually function. A move's accuracy, secondary effect rate, critical hit rate, how it functions, how stat changes are determined, how EV's can be distributed, IV limitations, how priorities are determined, and even "glitches", are all part of the game's mechanics. This debate and poll is about whether or not Smogon needs to absolutely follow every detail about how Pokemon battle mechanics function in-cart.

Clauses/Rules: These are limitations that we place on competitive Pokemon as a community. These do NOT alter the game's mechanics in any way, and these are not what the debate is about. Saying that "Smogon already changes the game's mechanics by banning Pokemon and setting up clauses" is incorrect as defined by this topic, and posts claiming so will be deleted. Basically, clauses or rules are what we set up, and if people break them they are disqualified. We can use the simulator to prevent people from bringing banned Pokemon or moves into our standard battles. One way to look at this is to consider the simulator to be a judge that looks at your team before you battle and tells you whether or not you can play. Simple.

Please note that the purpose of this topic is not to debate about Sleep Clause mechanics, or anything specific; that has already been done to death, and I'm pretty sure most users already know where they stand on this issue. If you have not thought too much about this yet, then please read the topics I linked to in this post to catch up on some of the key arguments. I think most people already know my personal preference and stance, and if you don't know you can go check the poll results to find out. I could have put my foot down and said "this is how we're doing things", but I think this is something worth letting the community decide. Let's move past this issue and set it in stone so we can get on with shaping the 5th generation!

This poll closes in 7 days.

Edit: I just wanted to be clear that for option 2 (no), we would still only reserve the right to change mechanics on very rare occasions. I do not want it to come off as an option to change Pokemon to a fighting game or something drastic.

[jrrrrrrr]

I voted no simply because I think things like this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Having a strict policy removes any ability for us to use common sense and our playing experience in making decisions, which is ridiculous. Things like sleep clause making sleep moves fail have worked for us for the better part of a decade and they go against game mechanics. We almost always tend to use the in-game mechanics anyways (there are only a few exceptions), so I don't even think this issue is that big anyways.

[Aldaron*]

I voted no because while I think we should certainly strive to adhere to in game mechanics, there are always exceptions to rules.

The bajillion exception cases for a "properly implemented sleep clause" are what come immediately to mind.

[mien]

The bajillion exception cases for a "properly implemented sleep clause" are what come immediately to mind.

Things like sleep clause making sleep moves fail have worked for us for the better part of a decade and they go against game mechanics

Doesn't the OP state, that having clauses do not alter the game mechanics?

Or am i missing something here

[Kristoph]

The answer is yes. If we're not striving to simulate the game, we're not striving to simulate the game. You can tell me that "well we'll just exercise common sense" all you want, and we'll both know that that's a ridiculous copout response so you can justify making things 'easier' or more comfortable for you. The community was ridiculously absurdly completely different as recently as the beginning of 4th gen. It is insane to think that it won't also change significantly from now until three years from now or whatever, and insane to believe that "common sense" with regard to mechanic-breaking clauses are somehow going avoid that change.

I don't mind people arguing that "we shouldn't care about simulating Pokemon," since I don't know, maybe we shouldn't. You can't have it both ways, though; you can't "want to simulate Pokemon" and then have the entire basis of our simulation's authenticity be the "common sense" of a community that, three years ago, literally just assumed that we'd be handed down a banlist from on high.

Originally Posted by Fat Aldaron

there are always exceptions to rules.

So wouldn't the "rule" be "adherence to the actual game mechanics"?

[Gouki]

Originally Posted by Fat mien

Doesn't the OP state, that having clauses do not alter the game mechanics?

Or am i missing something here

the OP is talking about clauses that only ban things from being used, while sleep clause changes how the move actually works.

anyway voted no, because i think there are always exceptions to be made for practicality's sake, but i do believe we should only veer away from correct mechanics when it's absolutely needed. i'd like to think everyone here realizes that "no" doesn't mean cartridge mechanics mean nothing in the face of making the game "more competitive".

[Aldaron*]

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

So wouldn't the "rule" be "adherence to the actual game mechanics"?

The poll says "strictly," which I interpreted to mean no exceptions.

If there were an option that said "stick to them as much as possible, but occasionally make exceptions (classic sleep clause, implementation of obvious glitches)," I would select that.

[cim]

We simply can't call ourselves a Pokemon site if we don't play Pokemon. It seems absolutely black and white to me and while things would be a little easier if we could fudge this and that, I think not only are the "problems" with strict implementation massively drummed up, but "solving" them just makes a lot of them worse.

There are many reasons for a strict follow-the-game policy:

• We're "not playing Pokemon". This isn't just a pedantic thing; our sets and metagame can never, ever translate to a cartridge battle at this point. This produces the dreaded "simulator - wifi disconnect" and makes our analyses less useful for the general battling community as a whole. This really can't be understated.
• Strict implementation is a very concrete line. It means we have to argue about the rules less because it is an absolute. This reduces the burden of rulemaker, making Pokemon more enjoyable for policymakers, and also prevents any argument about where to stop "fixing" the game. Stuff like Fire Fang vs Wonder Guard, Shoal Salt going against its in game description, Flash Fire's fun little glitches, when Dream World gets implemented, and all of these annoying minor things are not stuff we have to pour through and determine intent on.

This really is one of the few things, believe it or not, I can't really see myself compromising on...

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I have to agree with Chris here. The "Simulator-Wifi gap" makes it significantly harder for Smogon to cater to its huge WiFi community when it supports rules that cannot actually be used in a WiFi battle. This, for me, is huge, because WiFi is one of the most active communities, with more posts in it than nearly the rest of the entire site COMBINED. Adopting a stance that could potentially alienate a huge portion of the playerbase and site base isn't a decision to be made lightly.

[locopoke]

Tweaking mechanics to make the game more competitive doesn't mean we're not playing Pokemon. Using this logic, we haven't been playing Pokemon since gen 1. The fact that competitive oriented Pokemon games include classic sleep clause should indicate to us that there is nothing wrong with competitive simulators using it as well. In the games that are geared towards competitive gameplay, classic sleep clause is always included. We're a competitive community so there's no reason why we shouldn't play the game that way.

[Mekkah**]

Saying we are not playing Pokémon when we slightly tweak the way a rule is enforced is technically correct, but realistically, you are playing Pokémon. But with a slightly tweaked rule that might be more practical, and simplifies the game.

That said, I don't plan on trying to abuse some way to sleep two opponents without getting the loss for it, nor do I think it will be easy for my opponents to do so. And sleep clause is really the main component of this argument - the other changes don't matter too much for competitive play. Therefore, I don't have a large problem with the literal interpretation side. But I really wish people wouldn't act as if it wasn't so necessary. I don't think entire userbases will be alienated just because of slight differences such as this.

[M Dragon]

This is competitive pokemon. We are trying to make the best possible metagame. Simulator mechanics should be as similar to the cartridge mechanics as possible, but it doesnt mean it must have the exactly same mechanics.

[Firestorm]

I really think it should be no question that we simulate something rather than try to work out "glitches". There are a number of environments we can emulate:

• WiFi
• Local Wireless
• Infrared (?)
• Stadium

I personally like emulating the Stadium environment best as that usually is Nintendo's "competitive" mode where we do have the clauses we like playing with without having to create a patched up version of them as in the case of Sleep Clause. Unfortunately, we don't have a Generation V version yet and won't for at least a year most likely.

If we could vote on clause implementation and game mechanics separately, I would be inclined to maybe vote to follow game mechanics to the letter and implement clauses based on the Stadium games knowing they'll be out soon anyway, but since we can't, I think adhering to game mechanics is more important than a workaround to sleep clause. After all, sleep clause worked just fine when I played exclusively on WiFi.

[bugmaniacbob]

Why is it that we cannot base the game we're playing around common sense? I'm sure that nobody in this entire thread objects to the fact that you can just give a Pokemon a set of moves, EVs, and items that ordinarily would take days or weeks to accomplish. You want to say we aren't playing Pokemon? Fine. We aren't playing Pokemon, we're simulating Pokemon, and there's a massive difference between the two. I can't see any reason to follow the games we have been given to the letter, that's what Wifi is for (since clearly that tier has no alternative). There is no black and white to it, there is no clear way forward, since inevitably there is always going to be an exception - as Philip pointed out, the DPPtHGSS equivalent was the Acid Rain glitch. It was a glitch, and I don't think anyone could argue to the contrary reasonably (though IIRC plenty tried), yet we still felt we have to implement it 'just because'.

Strict implementation is a concrete line, yes. But I still feel that the supporters' doom-prophecies are overexaggerated. Does anybody here really believe that ignoring the Acid Rain glitch would have caused a mass exodus from the Wifi community. There is no slippery slope where common sense is involved, and I absolutely trust that Philip, his brain trust and the admins can note down where something is an unacceptable deviation from the games - for me, this would be where there is no evidence, ingame or otherwise, to suggest that that particular effect should take place. Nowhere in any Nintendo official guide, as far as I am aware, is there any mention of Pursuit causing the weather to make Cherrim mutate and break the game.

Personally I prefer to adopt the line of 'playing our game by the official rules'. What I mean by this is that we have our ruleset, which should be nice and simple and easy to follow. We know what just about every move and every type is supposed to and does actually do. Vaguely. We are even now making those rules to suit our purposes - Is Encourage really a 1.3x boost? Does Poison Hand really have a 20% chance of activating? How are we supposed to know it isn't imperceptibly different, or even a 1.31x boost? We don't, realistically speaking. We research the games, we make the most probable assumption and we adjust the simulator rules accordingly. So are we not playing Pokemon now? Common sense would say yes, though apparently we are not. So there is no reason to implement a glitch that we can divine, by exactly the same thought process, was never meant to exist.

Of course, I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim that this is the ideal option. As some people have rightly pointed out, there are a number of grey areas that this creates - the most notable point I can think of right now is the Dream World abilities and the legality issues associated with them. Should we assume that Speed Boost Baton Pass Blaziken is legal because somebody managed to get it past the hack checks on random Wifi? But on the other hand, we don't really know at all whether it really is possible to get them or not. We haven't found any females, true, but that's a small sample compared to the numbers out there. How are we to determine whether or not it actually exists? I'm sure there are ways of finding out, but unless I have missed something, nobody has done them yet. So perhaps they will simply be 'presumed nonexistant' and that's our stance on the matter. I take issue with that, but can't think of a way to solve it. Perhaps the simplest conclusion would be to ban everything that can't be found in the game and subsequently ban all event legendaries, all event items, and all Dream World abilities. Then the Wifi community would be, as we all know, 'integrated'. But is this the ideal solution?

To a great extent we are already following this philosophy. Farceus is all you get in Ubers, though common sense dictates you should be able to EV it fully in the simulator sense. All the event legendaries were banned until their release. But they aren't now. I think that when I played ingame fully, I was much, much more annoyed that all the movesets on Smogon assumed that I had unlimited TM Earthquake and every other move, RNG abuse to hand and the ability to snap my fingers and event legendaries appeared, than I ever was that the simulators did not follow the games utterly faithfully. I'm guessing the average Wifier groans a thousand times louder at the sight of Wish Blissey in the StrategyDex than at the presence of a Sleep Clause in our simulators - I know I do. If we want to integrate the Wifi community into Smogon, we could be more realistic about our strategies. But no - Smogon is a competitive community, that has and will always use simulators, and we aren't going to change that any time soon.

If we want to call ourselves a 'Pokemon' site, by all means forget the idea of Simulator play and stick Wifi at the default top of the forums page. But until we decide to do that, I'll be content with a common sense approach to game mechanics - and that is quite literally impossible if we are to limit ourselves so grievously, so early into the 5th generation.

In summary: follow the mechanics of the game, not the cartridge.

[DougJustDoug**]

As a matter of policy, I think we should adopt a stance that says "We will always follow ingame mechanics." The reality is that we can only "do our best" to follow ingame mechanics. And in every instance where I have agreed we should NOT strictly follow ingame mechanics, it was because it was not practical to do so. I would never deviate from ingame mechanics simply because I didn't like the mechanics.

If we adopt an explicit policy that says anything along the lines of, "We'll only implement the game mechnics that we agree with" -- that's a bad policy. I don't think that is what is being proposed in this vote; but I fear that's how it might eventually be twisted to mean.

So, if I have to choose yes or no, then I choose to adopt a POLICY of strictly following ingame, with full knowledge that all policies can only be followed on a best-efforts basis.

[Hipmonlee]

I am pretty sure that is what is being proposed in this vote doug. For instance many people have said in this thread that acid rain should not be implemented, even though it is already implemented in Pokelab.

Have a nice day.

[Synre]

Especially after talking with Phil about this policy some last week I don't want to have a hard and fast always follow the game rule, just because it is very restrictive. I don't like "we have to follow the game, discussion closed" ending otherwise interesting debates.

I expect to be very close to voting to keep in-game mechanics without exception on specific issues, but I want the issues to be discussed individually. I don't want us getting too fast and loose with the rules, either, but I can't foresee what might occur and anything more ridiculous than acid rain in future games might be too much. Feel safer keeping options open for anything too detrimental that might come up.

[shrang]

The simulators in my view, should strictly follow what is in-game, because after all, we are playing Pokemon and not Shoddy Battle, Pokemon Lab, Pokemon Online, etc. The more accurate the simulator is at simulating the game itself, the better it is, otherwise it would be quite a waste of time going through all the research that we decide to put time into.

Clauses, on the other hand, are different to mechanics. Implementing Sleep Clause, for example, is pretty much the same as implementing a ban on a Pokemon we consider to be Uber. I think the OP addresses this pretty well, so I don't think I should go on much further.

[lati0s]

Originally Posted by Fat shrang

Clauses, on the other hand, are different to mechanics. Implementing Sleep Clause, for example, is pretty much the same as implementing a ban on a Pokemon we consider to be Uber. I think the OP addresses this pretty well, so I don't think I should go on much further.

It depends on how the clause is implemented, sleep clause implemented such that a selected sleep move will fail in a situation where another pokemon is already asleep requires changing game mechanics.

[Syberia]

Voted no for reasons that should be readily apparent from reading those other threads. This comes with a few qualifications, though, as touched on in the OP. I am in no way advocating doing something like giving Flareon Flare Blitz, changing base stats, changing the way moves work, or anything else that the "slippery slope" people might try to bring up in an argument.

As I mentioned in the Sleep Clause topic, I would propose that we limit ourselves to "grandfathering" in mechanics that Nintendo/Game Freak have already implemented before, but which we cannot currently have under "100% accurate simulation" because the game in which they appear has not been updated to include new pokemon, alternate forms, moves, items, or the like. For instance, using D/P weather mechanics with Platinum's alternate forms, or using PBR's sleep clause with 5th-gen pokemon.

[shrang]

Originally Posted by Fat lati0s

It depends on how the clause is implemented, sleep clause implemented such that a selected sleep move will fail in a situation where another pokemon is already asleep requires changing game mechanics.

I think the OP is pretty clear on this:

Clauses/Rules: These are limitations that we place on competitive Pokemon as a community. These do NOT alter the game's mechanics in any way, and these are not what the debate is about. Saying that "Smogon already changes the game's mechanics by banning Pokemon and setting up clauses" is incorrect as defined by this topic, and posts claiming so will be deleted. Basically, clauses or rules are what we set up, and if people break them they are disqualified. We can use the simulator to prevent people from bringing banned Pokemon or moves into our standard battles. One way to look at this is to consider the simulator to be a judge that looks at your team before you battle and tells you whether or not you can play. Simple.

Basically, implementing an extra mechanic into the simulator isn't really changing the game, so to speak, since if you were playing with Sleep Clause and you slept one of your opponent's Pokemon while another one is asleep means you'll get disqualified and we end the game right there. Yes, while technically it is "altering the mechanics" because we added in some extra features, but it's just something to enforce a ban that we imposed, like how we prevent people taking Arceus into the 4th gen OU ladder by actually preventing their team from being loaded.

[jrrrrrrr]

I feel like this post was aimed at me, so I'll respond to it since you bring up legitimate points. I really don't feel like arguing so I'll just explain my position and leave this be.

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

The answer is yes. If we're not striving to simulate the game, we're not striving to simulate the game.

www.smogon.com/philosophy. We're not trying to simulate the game and we never have been, we are a competitive battling site. Nintendo just gives us a good starting point. Too many people confuse Smogon with simulators.

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

You can tell me that "well we'll just exercise common sense" all you want, and we'll both know that that's a ridiculous copout response so you can justify making things 'easier' or more comfortable for you.

If you're suggesting that people advocate bans to make the game easier for themselves, you are sorely mistaken. We have gone out of our way to ensure that everything we do is done with legitimate competitive reasoning behind it. That's the entire reason why this PR subforum was created, so that people can see the decision making process out in the open to make sure that what you said doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

The community was ridiculously absurdly completely different as recently as the beginning of 4th gen. It is insane to think that it won't also change significantly from now until three years from now or whatever, and insane to believe that "common sense" with regard to mechanic-breaking clauses are somehow going avoid that change.

Which is exactly why I think the strict policy advocated in the OP is a bad idea. We don't know what the community will be like in 3 years, so taking their choices away now would be foolish.

Originally Posted by Fat Blame Game

So wouldn't the "rule" be "adherence to the actual game mechanics"?

We should strive towards game mechanics, but let's be real here: sometimes they just suck. If a tweak here and there makes the game more competitive and/or more enjoyable, we should do it because that is the entire point of this site. If I wanted to play wifi, I would buy a DS.

[RBG*]

Originally Posted by Fat shrang

Basically, implementing an extra mechanic into the simulator isn't really changing the game, so to speak, since if you were playing with Sleep Clause and you slept one of your opponent's Pokemon while another one is asleep means you'll get disqualified and we end the game right there. Yes, while technically it is "altering the mechanics" because we added in some extra features, but it's just something to enforce a ban that we imposed, like how we prevent people taking Arceus into the 4th gen OU ladder by actually preventing their team from being loaded.

No, no, no. Assuming we are using Cartridge Mechanics, Giving the person who breaks sleep clause an auto-loss is not changing the mechanics, but rather, adding an alternate win condition, while forcing sleep moves to fail, when they would not usually, IS changing game mechanics. They are not comparable, and they are two completely different things. One which satisfies the purists, the which satisfies the people willing to make small changes to make the game better (or those who want to emulate the stadium games whenever they come out.)

[Seven Deadly Sins]

shrang, I suggest you carefully re-read the OP.

[Syberia]

Originally Posted by Fat jrrrrrrr

We should strive towards game mechanics, but let's be real here: sometimes they just suck. If a tweak here and there makes the game more competitive and/or more enjoyable, we should do it because that is the entire point of this site. If I wanted to play wifi, I would buy a DS.

I'm not sure "sometimes they just suck" is a viable reason to change game mechanics. In fact, even though I voted no in this poll, I don't think I would want to see anyone changing game mechanics because they "suck." I'm hoping we will limit this to fixing any new and obvious glitches that may pop up in future games, and possibly the implementation of classic sleep clause (I am more opposed to the reasoning which is being used to try to "force" us to abandon classic sleep clause than I am to actually abandoning classic sleep clause; in reality it makes virtually no difference, and certainly not as much as a new glitch potentially might).