Self-KO Clause in tournaments

Alright straight to the point, I think we should do away with Self-KO clause in tournament play (except possibly the tour because of time constraints).

Ties exist in Pokemon. The ladder recognizes ties, so should tournament play. If someone has played into a situation where they can force a tie with a self ko move, but will lose with any other move, it is uncompetitive to force him to lose. It's easy to play a rematch. I'm not sure exactly what the rules for rematching should be, so if you agree with me on the main point that'd be a nice thing to throw in your post (I'm thinking in a rematch the two battlers should be able to use new teams but there are other options i guess).

This is a really antiquated clause that accomplishes nothing but forcing a loss to someone who played into a tie situation. I don't see any reasons for keeping it around anymore.

Sorry not the most elegant post but I just wanted to get this out of the way as I'd been meaning to get this topic rolling for the past couple months.

Self-KO clause should remain present in Smogon Tour due to time constraints, but other than that, I don't see why it was ever enforced to begin with. I agree 100%.

Can we get a definitive list of all the things that would be legal to force ties without Self-KO Clause?

• Sandstorm/Hail finishing off pokemon A after pokemon A kills pokemon B
• Life Orb Damage Killing pokemon A after pokemon A kills pokemon B
• Destiny Bonding
• Exploding

Do all these result in a tie? This is all I could think of from the top of my head. In anycase, I agree.

Allowing for ties seems like the obvious choice; self-ko clause is intended for use in single elimination tournaments anyway. And the rating algorithm is already design to deal with ties (or at least the Pokelab one was, and I assume that PO is also equipped).

I'm actually not sure whether hail/ss KOing pokemon A after pokemon A KO's pokemon B results in a tie. Hail and SS are end-of-turn effects, and the match concludes before the end of the turn. Though tbh I am only guessing about cartridge battles here!

Regardless, it should certainly be a tie if hail/ss KO's both players' final pokemon on the same turn.

I should also be a tie if Perish Song KO's the final two pokemon in the game.

EDIT: Oh shit, this thread is specifically about in tournament play. Out of the four official smogon tournaments (tournament, tour, world cup, spl) allowing for ties is really only viable for world cup and spl. In the other two tournaments it would cause unnecessary delays (actually I suppose there could be ties in the tour final elimination matches). Having ties certainly seems like a no brainer for SPL and WCOP though, since their point systems deal with ties easily.

Wouldn't the rematch have both players playing with information different from the beginning of the original match? That seems like a potential problem with getting rid of the tiebreaker.

Well, for a rematch, i'd support using different teams - using the same teams wouldn't be very good. Although if both players agree, then they could use the same teams.

I'm surprised that so many people agree with this, not because I disagree with it (I don't), but because this should have been implicated ages ago given its popularity. In terms of what counts as a self-KO, I have no problem with following whatever works on wifi battles. We are committing to the actual game mechanics afterall and I can't see anything that would be overly controversial. We need a vote as to what the rematch would consist of. The same teams? New teams? Some sort of side board? Given that gen 5 has less surprises than previous gens, I wouldn't be opposed to using the same teams again.

We don't need to make a list of what we want to force a tie if we deimplement Self-KO. We can just use what the cartridge considers a tie in link battles.

I don't see the problem with the competitors deciding for themselves whether to switch teams in the event of a rematch. Other than that, I completely agree in principle but worry about implementation like TAY said.

It seems difficult to enforce "same teams". I see no problem with allowing competitors to switch teams if they desire. The rematch shouldn't be a problem in the official Smogon Tournament, either, I don't think.

It seems like the easiest and cleanest solution is to just follow the game in what it considers a tie.

I agree self ko clause is very uncompetetive and annoying, lets get rid of it.

Self-KO clause is an unnecessary rule. As said before, it's original use was simply to help severely time constrained (tour like) tournaments. The only reason I see for it becoming so widespead is that shoddy did not support ties. Now that we are playing primarily on a sim which does, we should return to the rules which more closely resemble real gameplay unless there is strong reason not to (there is not strong reason not to as far as I see).

Forcing players to use the same teams is impossible to enforce perfectly (quick lets change that 4th move I never used to something which hits his normal counter!), and changes the nature of the game by giving more information to both players (even if, in my opinion, this change is beneficial, it's still a change mid match and something to be avoided). We can probably decide both of these things by consensus without a formal vote, though if some group does raise significant objections then one should probably be called.

I don't think we need to bother with forcing people to change teams if it does end up being a tie. If they choose to run the same team, they run the risk of the opposing player already knowing what he has.

Agreeing with removal of self-KO clause in non-time constrained settings (aka scheduling for tournaments, not Smogon Tour/others).

I don't know why people are calling the clause "uncompetitive," but I agree that it's mostly superfluous now that ties are possible.

I don't think any of the Tournament Directors have any objection to removing Self-KO Clause from the standard clause list for non-live tournaments. Live tournaments should still have the clause due to time constraints.

I am almost certain the original reason for this clause was actually because there WERE no ties in rby/gsc/adv, but don't quote me on that.

Either way it probably is about time to make this change given that there are ties now.

This also gives much more value to wobbuffet though, like it needed more. I do like the implications for explosion teams though.

I am almost certain the original reason for this clause was actually because there WERE no ties in rby/gsc/adv, but don't quote me on that.

Click to expand...

well then... rby/gsc

Jackal said:

This also gives much more value to wobbuffet though, like it needed more.

Click to expand...

Wobb hasn't been able to force a tie since the beginning of Gen 4, with the Struggle boost leading to a definitive winner. Not to mention Shadow Tag vs Shadow Tag pokemon can switch.

Jackal said:

well then... rby/gsc

Click to expand...

not found a RB one yet.

@Chris: I think he means last Pokemon CustapBond (or normal DB till Custap is out). Wob Vs Wob is not affected by the normal self KO clause (and iirc someone proved that it was not quite a tie, eventually someone would get 36 crits in a row and win or something crazy like that).

I don't think I'm able to add anything relevant that hasn't been already mentioned, but I agree with this proposal. If someone's able to plan a way to avoid a loss, even be it by a tie, it should be valid.

supermarth64 said:

I don't think we need to bother with forcing people to change teams if it does end up being a tie. If they choose to run the same team, they run the risk of the opposing player already knowing what he has.

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that this is mostly irrelevant in gen5 due to team previews exposing everything sans the odd Hidden Power before battles. But if we enforce this change retroactively to the other 4 gens then it may become an issue. I also think we should just let the players decide what teams to use.

Earthworm said:

I don't think any of the Tournament Directors have any objection to removing Self-KO Clause from the standard clause list for non-live tournaments. Live tournaments should still have the clause due to time constraints.

Click to expand...

I agree with this proposal. When time restraints are an issue, like during Smogon Tours...then add Self-KO clause. But otherwise I don't see the point.

Blame Game said:

I don't know why people are calling the clause "uncompetitive," but I agree that it's mostly superfluous now that ties are possible.

Click to expand...

It's uncompetitive because it forces someone to lose when they actually didn't. It's an arbitrary win condition we added when the game we're supposed to be emulating with 100% accuracy recognizes ties. Making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded. Judging by your posts in this forum, I don't think competitive means what you think it means.

jrrrrrrr said:

It's uncompetitive because it forces someone to lose when they actually didn't. It's an arbitrary win condition we added when the game we're supposed to be emulating with 100% accuracy recognizes ties. Making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded. Judging by your posts in this forum, I don't think competitive means what you think it means.

Click to expand...

We're aren't the only ones that added it, Self-KO clause is in effect at VGC. That being said, those are live tournaments, and I agree we should remove it for anything else like ew said.

jrrrrrrr said:

It's uncompetitive because it forces someone to lose when they actually didn't.

Click to expand...

no, it doesn't. they lose because that's what the rules dictate; whether or not they'd lose under a ruleset sans Self-KO clause is a separate story.

It's also not an arbitrary win condition-- it's just a win condition (you made up the "arbitrary" part).

"making good moves to force a tie is something that should be rewarded" is wrong too, but also redundant and circular. yes, good moves should be rewarded. forcing a tie is not a good move when the rules don't allow ties, though, and it certainly isn't inherently reward-worthy just because it happens to be one under other potential ruleset configurations--even if those ruleset configurations are "official"

I do think that the rule is mostly superfluous and should probably be removed, because simpler rulesets tend to be more accessible, and people evidently have little problem with the potential time constraints in tournaments. Strictly speaking you can say that this possibly makes the rule "uncompetitive" in the sense that marginal decreases to new players' barrier to entry is technically going to improve competition overall. I'd still complain about that because it dilutes the term into relative uselessness, but it doesn't seem like people are even going that route in the first place-- in light of your post, it's pretty clear that the word "uncompetitive" is simply being used as a buzzword to make otherwise-indefensibly horrible arguments seem a little bit more attractive. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for a proposal as shockingly impossible as "It's uncompetitive because it forces someone to lose when they actually didn't."