1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Cartridge Sleep Clause mechanics

Discussion in 'The Policy Review' started by RBG, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Scofield

    Scofield Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhh, Kate.......
    is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL + WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,194
    I'm completely against this. It's hard for me to quantify why into words, so sorry if this isn't completely clear. I'd just really like the parameters for winning and losing be consistent throughout. Pretty much, I'd always accept the auto win, and I'd hate it if someone didn't do the same to me. I also don't want people to get upset if I do accept the auto win, since it might be viewed as a bit of a "jerk" move.
  2. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Factory Headis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,084
    I understand that Obi. In fact, that was my stance on the matter since the beginning too (aside from when Hip led me astray for a second).

    I don't mind allowing the victim of multiple Pokemon put to sleep having the option to win or not. I mean, I'd rather it not be there so you don't have to deal w/ the hassle of people pleading if they break sleep clause, but I will select "Win" either way.
  3. Jumpman16

    Jumpman16 np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,768
    i'll use this for the base of my post because i agree with most of it. for me this all boils down to intent. i dont not agree that metronome should break sleep clause if it puts two pokemon to sleep (or one if you'd previously put another pokemon to sleep), because you did not intend to do so. it's not the strongest argument, but if people really want to state that metronome should result in a loss if it results in two intentionally slept pokemon, i will wonder aloud where the metronome hate is when it concerns OHKOs or evasion moves. i dont know how shoddy currently handles the usages of those moves if accessed through metronome and you're playing with ohko/evasion clause on though so if someone could shed light on that it would be cool.

    i mean whatever, if i wanted to be a purist i could say that this actually should be illegal because "lol you should have known that you had a like 1-in-100 chance of sleeping that second foe pokemon and remembered that you intentionally slept a previous foe pokemon)", so i guess i'll chance my stance and say that this should indeed be illegal if only because it will "never happen" and that if you're using metronome in a serious battle anyway and already slept a foe pokemon you deserve to lose if you're really that lucky (unlucky?) to conjure up a second sleep move with metronome that hits

    magic coat is very interesting, but shouldn't break sleep clause because the magic coat user did not intend to intentionally sleep two pokemon, and this is something that the sleep user could abuse more than the magic coat user. the magic coat user would have to know that the sleep-move pokemon both has the move, plans on using it, but most importantly that the sleep-move pokemon does not also have another move that can be bounced back by magic coat. the magic coat user shouldn't be penalized for wanting to bounce back a possible twave or stun spore. and the sleep user should know full well that one of his pokemon has already been put to sleep, so that if he DOES use the sleep move, he could get fucked over by magic coat.

    now the sleep user doesn't necessarily know that the magic coat pokemon has magic coat, but i dont think the magic coat user should be penalized for using magic coat on a sleep move if the user's trainer already intentionally slept a foe pokemon, especially when there is virtually no way of knowing that this sleep pokemon doesn't have another move that can be bounced by by magic coat. so i think that ideally, if:

    1) the magic coat user's trainer has already intentionally put one foe pokemon to sleep
    2) the magic coat user knows without question that the sleep-move pokemon has a sleep move
    3) the magic coat user knows without question that the sleep-move pokemon has no other moves that can be bounced back by magic coat (incredibly unlikely but this is possible)
    4) the magic coat user successfully uses magic coat to sleep a second foe pokemon (meaning the foe used it, the magic coat user uses magic coat, and the sleep move actually hits)

    then yes, the magic coat user's trainer should be disqualified due to intentionally breaking sleep clause. this is the only scenario that seems fair to me, though. the magic coat user very much does have to know that the sleep user has no other moves affected by magic coat, or else we literally cannot state that the magic coat user's trainer intended to sleep a second foe pokemon. please weigh in on my thoughts on this and let me know if i didnt consider anything

    assist and sleep talk should be illegal because you know your own team and you know that there is a chance that you can select the sleep move. same goes for psycho shift as states previously—this is intent.

    encored sleep is illegal since you have a choice to switch out, so by not doing so you very much intend to sleep another pokemon (and you can't argue that maybe they would have stayed in or switched in insomnia honchkrow since neither would not break sleep clause even if you're that silly). by the same token, trapped choice is not illegal because you did not intend to sleep TWO pokemon, just one.

    last pp sleep is illegal for the same reason encored sleep is, you have the chance to switch to another pokemon. i dont think this should be illegal if this is your last pokemon, though, but lol you are going to lose anyway unless some silly sandstream stuff kills their 5% machamp and 4% vaporeon when all you have left is the faster breloom that only has spore PP left, because breloom still had no choice but to use spore.

    finally effect spore should be legal if only because the FOE has to intentionally use contact moves on you. you would have to know that the foe only has contact moves when you stay in in a scenario like the magic coat one above, and even then if you successfully slept a second foe pokemon this is not your fault, as it would be with magic coat if all four of the possibilities i listed above are in effect, or as it would be in a roundabout way when you use metronome and conjure up spore or whatever
  4. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Factory Headis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,084
    This is ideal and all, but the problem is, how is anybody supposed to verify intent? It also seems much more likely for someone to predict a sleep move than it is for someone to predict a Magic Coat. In that sense, intent can almost always be placed on the Magic Coat user.

    This is a good point that I did not consider. I can see the legitimacy of legalizing Effect Spore now.

    For the most part, I agree with Jump's post. The problem is, it relies on confirming intent, which is impossible for the most part. If you could provide some solution to figuring out intent, Jump, I'm all ears.
  5. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,336
    One of the issues I have with the trapped sleep move clause or the idea of testing for intent, is that these rules need to be simple.

    What you are suggesting jump, is so complex I cant imagine it ever being followed. Like, ok, on shoddy we can enforce it, but we should expect these rules to cover wifi as well. And I would imagine that most of the time people wont even notice if they have broken sleep clause under those rules or not..

    As far as I am concerned when you use magic coat, you dont put your opponent to sleep, your opponent puts themselves to sleep. If you encore an opponents rest and they get put to sleep how is that different to what magic coat does? A move you made caused your opponent to put themselves to sleep.

    Have a nice day.
  6. Cathy

    Cathy

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,062
    "Intent", which as used here doesn't actually reflect intent but more something along the lines of whether they had any other option, can't be in the rules because it's obfuscatory and needlessly complex. I'm not willing to implement an elaborate system that keeps track of what you could possibly know and bases whether you lose thereon, and I don't even think such a system is a good idea. All of the rules, including Sleep Clause, should be easily able to be stated in simple, brief, plain language. Here is my preferred approach, and definitely the simplest to implement:

    At the end of every turn, if more than one pokemon is asleep on one side, and if at least two of those pokemon were put asleep by enemy moves, excluding Magic Coat, but including Yawn, then that side automatically wins. If both sides qualify, the game ends as a draw.

    Some facts about my statement (note: these facts follow from the statement; they are not additional provisions).
    - simple yet fully specified (nothing else so far has actually covered all the cases)
    - reasonable to implement
    - if your second victim of sleep holds a berry that cures sleep, you don't lose
    - effect spore doesn't ever make you lose
    - obscure situations involving yawns are handled fairly
  7. Jumpman16

    Jumpman16 np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,768
    the only thing that can actually be determined in my scenario is that the sleep user intended to put the magic coat pokemon to sleep. everything else is not only almost impossible to verify but will virtually never happen. only for the sake of completeness did i lay out a scenario where the magic coat user would be as guilty of breaking sleep clause as he would be if he had his pokemon use sleep powder and it hit, leaving his foe with two enemy-slept pokemon. if nobody wants to challenge that because it will virtually never happen that's one thing but if we are striving for fairness it is "ideal" to consider all scenarios

    my post was more me expressing my own opinions and why i have them, in the fashion i prefer (stream of consciousness and wordy), than me attempting to dictate at a hard and fast ruleset that everybody who plays pokemon should follow. im not going to come into a thread that's almost two weeks old and try and put my foot down on important policy out of nowhere.

    besides, many people who continue to play on wifi and prefer it to shoddy do so to actually escape the hard-and-fast ruleset that governs shoddy, so i am not going to make it my overarching goal to create a ruleset that 12-year-olds will understand be able to understand in five seconds. if we are talking about magic coat in the first place, no casual wifi player is going to be able to figure out in five seconds whether sleep clause has been broken if magic coat reflects back sleep powder and it misses:

    wait, wasn't my snorlax still asleep from when his jynx lovely kissed it? is it still even asleep? or did i rest back to 100% HP after waking up...or was that the last battle? no i think it was this one...so isn't this guy DQed anyway for trying to put two of my pokemon to sleep? i mean i guess it missed but wouldn't you be DQed on shoddy battle under smogon rules if you used a OHKO move even if you missed? i guess that's not possible if you check off the no OHKO box....that doesn't apply here though, i wonder what that rule is too...wait isn't his roserade scarfed anyway? why would he use sleep powder again if one of my pokes is already asleep? he knows sleep clause is in effect so i guess my lax DID wake up and rest on its own...right?

    if i wanted to i could start whoring pokemon with 600 very-well placed EVs and get away with it forever because most of the time people wouldn't notice, and on wifi things like that cannot be enforced.

    and rules don't have to be "simple" if they are automated by a failsafe system implemented by a trustworthy party. do you think every single person who plays pokemon either on shoddy or on wifi actually understands every last variable of the damage formula? or the algorithm that determines the OU and UU tiers? do they all care? i doubt it.

    regardless of the fact that my post merely contained my musings and not mandates, obfuscation and complexity are neither necessarily nor inherently reasons for something to be or not to be in the rules. the only thing that is "complex" is my magic coat scenario at any rate

    i'll give you the second point because you are entitled to your opinion (though i and likely others would appreciate it if you could expand upon this), but i hope you are not actually implying that you're not willing to implement something simply because it is complex. you're not willing to write it, or just implement it?

    and as an aside, how is the "keeps track of what you could possibly know" idea any different from your plan to include within shoddy battle 2 the documentation of what foe pokemon your opponent has brought out, aside from my guess that this would be easier than implementing a complex but fair application of how sleep clause should be handled with respect to magic coat?

    this is fine and all but how are the 12-year-olds on wifi supposed to know the "why" behind it all if it's not stated in a post like this? i still see "why is garchomp banned" like 20% of the time i'm on shoddy—it would be convenient for me to ignore them all, but that doesn't mean the question isnt valid or that i shouldn't be able to point them in the right direction
  8. Syberia

    Syberia [custom user title]
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,024
    While I was in the shower today, I randomly happened to come up with a way that might be able to reconcile both sides of this debate, while keeping something that's as close to the current "sleep move fails" Sleep Clause which we have in effect now, working of course from the premise that keeping Sleep Clause, in its current form, is in the best interests of making the game as competitive as possible. I think this is a fair assumption, because were it not the case, the mechanic would not have endured for as long as it has.

    Now, Colin and most of the other "mechanic purists" seem to only be interested in preventing the impossible situations from occurring, and not simply the highly improbable (as evidenced by the fact that flawless legends were still allowed after IV restrictions were implemented, and before RNG abuse was discovered). Colin, at least, is also not opposed to considering a significant outside framework in which the game is played for the purpose of simulating certain aspects that would not be possible through the use of cartridges alone. For instance, when I questioned the implementation of the "undo move" feature as something that would not be possible in cartridge play, his response was to invent a theoretical system in which both players would write their moves down and give them to a judge, who would act as a sort of "time buffer" and allow a player to change his or her move before it was inputted into the DS, so long as it was before the opponent had attacked.

    Such a framework could also theoretically be used to keep Sleep Clause in a form close to the way it works now, by virtue of the fact that all Sleep moves and abilities (bar Spore, which is a special case and will be discussed separately at the end of this post) are not 100% accurate. This includes Sleep Talk Psycho Shift, as unless a pokemon was carrying only those two moves (or only those two moves and Focus Punch), there is a chance of Psycho Shift not being chosen. In order to rectify this for the truly pedantic, a set of Sleep Talk, Psycho Shift, Focus Punch/no move, and no move could be made illegal on all pokemon in ladder matches.

    What this means, theoretically, is that if the situation of a player putting two of his or her opponent's pokemon to sleep ever came up, the match could be totally canceled. It would be replayed from the beginning, with the same exact moves, as many times as necessary until the exact same random effects happened on each and every turn. While I agree that the chance of this occurring is highly improbable, it is possible, even if it takes over 9,000 (or over a trillion) replays. On the turn when the player would have put the second pokemon to sleep, he or she would pick the Sleep move again, and the opponent would pick whatever move they would have used. If the Sleep move misses (or Sleep Talk picks something not named Psycho Shift), the match continues from that point on, and the result of this second play-through is the one that counts. If the Sleep move misses, it's time for another trillion replays or so. Now I bet some of you will say that this requires mapping the course of the RNG for every possible situation, but it does not. Mingot has said that the battle RNG the game uses is time-based, like Emerald's, and runs continuously during the case of the battle. So even if you RNGed for the same seed as you had during the original battle, and made all your moves at the exact same time, and had the exact same server lag, there would still be the chance for that second Sleep move to fail, because all you would have to do would be to select it on a different RNG frame.

    In this way, we could still have the move that would break Sleep Clause "miss" while staying true to the strict technical mechanics of the game.

    And, of course, a note on the move Spore. This method can't work for Spore-induced Sleep, because Spore has no chance to miss. The best I can come up with is that the Spore user has to continue to use Spore until it runs out of PP, and if the opposing pokemon does not wake up on the exact same turn, we replay the match an infinite number of times until it does. Of course, such a situation might produce the unpleasant side effect of Breloom coming out of it at 100% health thanks to Poison Heal, while a Leftovers-less opponent in Sandstorm may very well die before Spore's PP is used up. If anyone else can figure out a way to make the Spore scenario end up more like that of any less than 100% accurate Sleep move, I am totally open to suggestions. If there's no conceivable way of doing this, then using Spore to put two pokemon to sleep at the same time might have to result in a loss.

    Keep in mind that Effect Spore can produce other status besides Sleep, so in the situation of that, you'd replay until it (a) activated, and (b) caused something other than Sleep. In the case of Magic Coat, you'd replay until the user of Magic Coat dodges the Sleep move being thrown at it, and Magic Coat fails.

    EDIT: This method would also work completely without a hitch for retaining Freeze Clause in its current form, since there is no way to get a move with a 100% chance of freeze. You'd just replay the match as many times as it takes for the second Ice move to not freeze, and go from there.
  9. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    That's an absolutely horrible idea for a number of reasons.

    1: What we're looking for is a comprehensive sleep clause that can be used for both WiFi and Shoddy Battle play. While this is "technically" possible given cartridge play, it is impossible to implement in practice.

    2: It's not comprehensive. Since Hypnosis got nerfed and Grass-types are rare, Spore is one of the most common sleep moves around, and having a sleep clause that doesn't actually address Spore in any way makes it flawed in a way that is irreconcilable.

    3: It sets a dangerous precedent. If this were to be put into place, it's feasible to suggest something like "Anti-hax Clause". You could ostensibly reroll every Fire Blast or Stone Edge miss, or every Flamethrower burn or Thunderbolt paralysis until it didn't happen, and "remove" hax from the game. Crits pissing you off? Just reroll the game! We could finally implement the removal of Sand Veil hax! Of course, this is completely infeasible on anything other than Shoddy Battle, and while technically possible, it isn't practically possible, and therefore impossible on a cartridge. Since this entire thread is about reflecting what is possible on a cartridge, implementing something like this is entirely counter-intuitive and sets a dangerous precedent that can't lead anywhere good.
  10. Syberia

    Syberia [custom user title]
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,024
    The precedent has already been set. The logistics of undo move are also practically not possible on Wi-Fi as well, especially since you have no way of knowing whether the opponent has made a move or not. Also, using a flawless legend on Wi-Fi was pretty much impossible before RNG abuse was discovered, as well (especially given the way people SR for legends, and the fact that they don't generally appear on frame 1). And before anyone says "Pokesav," I'm almost 100% certain that an AR code or ROM hack could be devised to implement Shoddy-style Sleep Clause as well.

    And it doesn't matter if it could be used to "remove crits" or add an "anti-hax" clause or not, since the only thing at issue here is whether it's technically possible or not. Until we actually start playing all of our matches matches locally in front of a judge who inputs our moves after a certain amount of time, undo move remains possible in theory only as well. Additionally, just because some sort of "hax clause" is possible using this line of logic, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, or should be implemented. The idea here was to come up with a framework that allows a great number of possibilities to be implemented; whether they are or not is of no importance. I'm sure you think something like BitTorrent should be illegal, since it "can" be used to break the law?

    I will agree that Spore is a bit of a flaw right now, but there may very well be a way to reconcile it with the rest of the idea, I just haven't thought about it enough yet.
  11. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    It doesn't matter if it's "technically possible".

    As far as your suggested technicality goes, it is practically impossible to do in standard cartridge play. Since we are referring to ACTUAL cartridge play, not happyfunland "I have an infinite amount of time to play one match", it is for all intents and purposes impossible to do this in normal cartridge play. Hell, the whole "there could be a judge preventing the players from seeing each other's pokemon" idea from PBR is a stretch, but it is actually practically possible for important matches, whereas taking infinite amounts of time to manipulate a RNG is not.

    As for the "slippery slope" argument, the fact that this framework encourages using 100% impractical technicalities to change the mechanics of the game is worrisome. It's an extreme stance with far larger ramifications than just "i want pbr sleep clause on cartridge", and it encourages the rift between Shoddy Battle and cartridge play to grow wider and wider, which is dangerous.

    Also, any justifications based on "i'm 100% sure you can use hacks to modify the cartridge to introduce pbr sleep clause" is ridiculous, considering that at that point you most definitely are not playing "Pokemon" any more, but your own version of the game that is not what Game Freak made available.

    Was this really necessary?
  12. RBG

    RBG But I keep cruising, can't stop, won't stop grooving.
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Facebook Manager

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,353
    Also, might I add, that we are trying to come up with a definition for Sleep Clause that works for cartridge play as well. Your solution is much less then desirable for Cartridge play.
  13. Articanus

    Articanus

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    What's wrong with just saying:

    "If a player uses moves to sleep two of the opponent's pokemon, said player loses. In the case that two players accomplish this in the same turn, the match ends in a draw."

    Other than a very strange case with Yawn, I don't see when the draw thing will ever be an issue.

    Magic coat: Doesn't break
    -As far as I'm concerned, if Gengar uses Hypnosis and Porygon2 uses Magic Coat, Gengar is the one putting itself to sleep since all the Porygon2 does is act like a mirror and redirects the sleep(an any other effects) back towards the user. Hence the Gengar ends up asleep and no one instantly loses.

    Metronome: Breaks it
    -Extremely unlikely and not truly a big issue. Congrats for whoever has the balls to use this move in competitive play and sorry for those who instantly lose because of it.

    Assist: Breaks it
    -I don't want to theorymon(no ubers pl0x), but I can see this being slightly abusable if it didn't break it. Imagine Furret in UU/ NU spamming it with stuff like Roserade, Milotic and friends in the back.

    Sleeptalk: Breaks it
    -The user is very aware that they have a 33.3333....% chance of sleeping the opponent if they Sleep Talk a move that could inflict sleep, and if they choose to try their luck even after they've put one to sleep, then what are they complaining about when it backfires?

    Encored sleep: Breaks it
    -In this case, isn't the opponent choosing to stay in and sleep again? In the case of Arena Trap/ whatever trapping ability, I honestly say kudos to whoever forced this outcome. It's not terribly abusable, and making a team to try to abuse it only puts you at a disadvantage against teams that:

    1) plays conservatively enough to not be encored into a sleep move.
    2) doesn't use a Scarfed Sleeper(so old school, and even then the user has to predict properly and employ a trapper on the team).
    3) doesn't even use a sleep move!

    Encored unavoidable sleep: Breaks it
    -Wait a second, didn't I just explain this? If there's a difference someone explain it to me please.

    Last pp sleep move: Breaks it
    -If your being forced to use a sleep move in the case of PP stalling, you're going to (most likely) lose anyway, since they would be forced to put you to sleep, making them lose more PP than you. And in the current sleep clause, if it would have broken sleep clause, then it fails. That's just more free turns for them to kill you. Not to mention they need two pokemon in the first place for this to work, so you'd have to stall both of them out anyway.

    Effect Spore: Doesn't break it
    -Your not using a move so it doesn't cause an instant loss.
    ...While I personally don't support it being allowed, I can't justify it other than "I don't like it", plus everyone seems to be wanting it to be legitimate so whatever. "Wynaut?", as most people say.

    I admit I skimmed a bit, so if I overlooked an issue... excuse my ignorance.
  14. Aeolus

    Aeolus Bag
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,639
    We primarily want a definition that works on Shoddy. That is our first concern. I don't buy any of SDS's arguments refuting Syberia's proposal. I find it rather attractive but it seems incomplete to me.
  15. Articanus

    Articanus

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    What about the definition:

    "If a player uses moves to sleep two of the opponent's pokemon, said player loses."

    isn't applicable to shoddy? It's very simple, easy to understand, and I'm sure wouldn't be harder to program than Syberia's suggestion(which I don't necessarily disagree with).
  16. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    This is a bunch of hullabaloo and bullshit over a clause that we're not even sure is anywhere near as bad as anyone claims. Instead of derailing this topic with "HEY HERE'S HOW WE CAN DO SHIT", let's stay on topic and ACTUALLY get a definition for cartridge sleep clause instead of turning this into a debate about how we can use vague technicalities that aren't practically possible to circumvent a rule that nobody has tested.

    EDIT: Can we at least get all of the commotion to halt until this has been implemented and tested? I really am tired of all this theoretical "omg the new sleep clause is awful !" before we've even had a chance to experience it.
  17. RBG

    RBG But I keep cruising, can't stop, won't stop grooving.
    is a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Super Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Facebook Manager

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,353
    Just quoting this because no one seems to have commented on Colin's definition besides Jumpman. Personally, I think Colin hit the definition on the nose. He covered every possible outcome in a very fair manner. I don't see why people are so much against having an ACTUAL definition for sleep clause that can be used on Wi-fi or shoddy.

    Syberia's solution just doesn't appeal to me at all. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems no different then the current sleep clause we have (aside from spore), which means we wouldn't be changing anything.
  18. Aeolus

    Aeolus Bag
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,639
    Seven Deadly Sins, you are not in a position to stifle discussion in this thread. Stop that. Syberia presented a viable option and it is worthy of discussion.

    That said, I have no problem with Colin's definition.
  19. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Factory Headis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,084
    The way I see it, Syberia's suggestion is more of a way to justify our current sleep clause using in-game mechanics than fix it. Even setting the huge Spore flaw aside, I do not think that this is the right way of going about things. What you're basically doing is manipulating the luck factor in Pokemon by forcing a "miss." It has been mentioned before, but this is definitely a slippery slope that I do not advise stepping foot on. After all, there is not much that sets this idea apart from a no-hax clause. One could just as easily argue that the game can be repeated a million times until a deadly crit doesn't occur.

    The worst part about Syberia's suggestion, IMO, is that it does not solve what I believe to be an important issue in fixing the sleep clause: preventing unacceptable battle strategy. This includes things like spamming a sleep move in hopes of putting your opponent asleep on the same turn he wakes up. Overall, I don't think the current sleep clause should be justified in any way. Instead, we should do what we set out to do: fix it.

    Also, having no good solution for Spore is just a big red flag that this should not be something to consider. No offense Syb, <3 you, but I really don't like this idea.

    As to Colin's suggested sleep clause, it's basically a summary of what I've been arguing for, so I support it. I mean, I still think Magic Coat is at the fault of the user of Magic Coat itself, not the user of the Sleep move, but if nobody else agrees with me, then so be it.
  20. Hipmonlee

    Hipmonlee Have a rice day
    is a Smogon IRC AOp Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Winner

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,336
    Syberia's proposal is in theory pretty sound in my opinion. The problem is that he hasnt formulated a sleep clause from it that is simple enough to be used..

    So we have to stick with Colin's suggestion (which is pretty much flawless imo).

    Also philip, evidently magic coat reflected sleep is not affected by the current sleep clause on shoddybattle. Just for interests sake.

    Have a nice day.
  21. Kristoph

    Kristoph

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Syberia's idea is pretty nice (I thought it was really clever) if we decide that we don't care about having a practically viable Wi-fi Sleep Clause, and if we assume that Sleep Clause in its current form is competitively ideal. However, I agree with RBG that we should care about Wi-fi to an extent, and I agree with SDS that Syberia's assumption that "keeping Sleep Clause, in its current form, is in the best interests of making the game as competitive as possible" is questionable. Basically, I don't see why we should neglect Wi-fi play purely to preserve the "spirit" of a rule that isn't without its own controversy (see Philip's reference to "unacceptable battle strategy," which I disagree with, but is comparable to many criticisms users have made of the vanilla "Sleep two pokemon and you lose" proposal). And then there's Spore, which is obviously a pretty big deal.

    I think Colin's definition is a fine solution.
  22. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Colin's suggestion is absolutely flawless. I support it wholeheartedly.
  23. Jumpman16

    Jumpman16 np: Michael Jackson - "Mon in the Mirror" (DW mix)
    is a Smogon IRC SOPis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,768
    correct me if im wrong but under the current scenario isnt something like this possible:


    player 2 switched in wobbuffet
    umbreon used yawn

    wobbuffet used encore
    umbreon used yawn
    wobbuffet fell asleep

    player 2 switched in, onto a field without toxic spikes, an unstatused pokemon that doesn't have insomnia or vital spirit and isn't holding a chesto/lum berry and kept it in one turn to force player 1 to lose


    also this could happen in OU if a togekiss encores the same umbreon and then switches in dugtrio the next turn. should player 1 be 100% required to switch out as soon as togekiss or any pokemon that encored it falls asleep, since dugtrio can come in an exploit the sleep clause if not?
  24. Philip7086

    Philip7086 Myuu
    is a Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis Smogon Frontier's Factory Headis a Past WCoP Winneris a SPL Winnerdefeated the Smogon Frontier

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,084
    In the Wob example, yes Player 1 will lose unless an exception to the rule is made for Wob + Encore (which I'm not necessarily opposed to). However, in your second situation, the player is not trapped by any means really, and can switch out to play it safe. Or if they want to gamble in hopes that their opponent doesn't have Dugtrio, then that's their choice. Again, I think a big purpose of fixing the sleep clause is eliminating (or discouraging) what should be risky battle behavior.
  25. Articanus

    Articanus

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    I support Colin's suggestion because it looks very similar to mine(mine's more in wifi-friendly terms, his is more programming). I think they both got overlooked xD

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)