Emergency Solutions for Platinum Weather Glitch

[obi]

How? That is my opinion. Opinions can't be right or wrong.

This particular point isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of definition. To say that there is a higher standard for "faithful to the game" than the game itself is to say that if you want to judge a person's actions, you should judge something other than their actions. "To find out how much something costs, don't look at its price, tell me what color it is.". It simply makes no sense.

YOU. ARE. WRONG.

In what way? Telling me I'm wrong without explaining why is like a car giving a "general car fault" warning light and saying nothing else. It's possible that it's true, but completely useless. Please tell me the specific point that you believe is incorrect. Am I assuming a false premise or am I making an invalid logical leap?

Nowhere in that paragraph do I say that we should implement anything where intent is not 100% known.

That sounds a lot like this statement, that you made in that paragraph:

Only when intent is 100% clear and obvious would I depart from what is in the game.

Those two statements appear to be identical.

I do give you that much. However, I don't believe that this issue is a matter of competitive vs. anti-competitive. To me, this strikes at the very heart of what Pokemon (NOT competitive Pokemon) is all about. This glitch isn't anti-competitive; it's anti-Pokemon, and I don't want anything anti-Pokemon in my game of Pokemon.

The point is that if you accept Karen's argument as the basis of Pokemon itself, then you have to reject tiering Pokemon. You also have to reject breeding Pokemon, because you should care for all Pokemon equally. There is nothing that is against the spirit of Pokemon more than throwing out a Pokemon because it doesn't have good enough genetics. That is really the strongest message in all of Pokemon.

Competitive balance isn't anti-Pokemon, IMO. Pure Pokemon is, for the most part, anti-competitive, thus we need to set rules to maintain competitive balance in order to make it more competitive. Without this, Smogon has no purpose for being.

But competitive balance as Smogon defines it is. If we follow the message of the game, it shouldn't matter if they're using a Garchomp and a Manaphy. Just train Pikachu hard enough and trust in the power of friendship, and you'll prevail.

Can we stop being pedantic and get to the heart of the debate instead of arguing over such nonsense?

I proposed a solution in my post. I would like you guys to comment on it.

How is it pedantic nonsense? It seems to me that talking about developer intent is pretty important when that is the heart of virtually all opposition to my position.

I've already rejected your 'solution'. Changing game mechanics is not the best option we have.

Due to the possible loop any suggestion could start, I say the best course of action is to have Doug decide upon the final coding. Rather than wasting our time, it's quicker if he decides whether to put it on or not. If he says no then we can drop the whole thing, because obviously we can't force Doug into doing something he doesn't want. If he says yes then we'll just have to live with the glitch and the way he sets it up. We're simply not progressing at all.

Doug is not the sole arbiter of the code of Shoddybattle. It's a free and open-source project. Any one with the ability and desire to edit the code can do so. If someone else were to code a fix for this bug (the bug being that Shoddybattle does not accurately simulate game mechanics), then I would expect Doug to add this update to the server at the next server reset, same as any other bug fix.

I'm going to have to agree with Elevator Music here. We need to wait it out until we know all of the "effects of this glitch" before we make action. Right now it seems the only thing we can do is just ignore it until we now how it will effect the metagame, and as stated before and above all the effects. He also brought up a great point about how this could and most likely compromise the most recent suspect tests, and maybe even the tests before it.

We don't need to know the effects at all to decide whether, as a matter of policy, we're going to ignore the game.

I still don't like doing that though since it's basically saying "it is impossible to play standard competitive pokemon using a pokemon game cartridge", which to me just seems ridiculous regardless of developer intent or any of that nonsense.

I'm just quoting this because it's probably the most important point in this thread. To not add this glitch as a matter of policy is to say you cannot play competitive Pokemon in a Pokemon game.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

When I say,

"Only when intent is 100% clear and obvious would I depart from what is in the game."

I mean that if what was intended was 100% clear and obvious and what was intended is not what is in the game, then I would depart from what is in the game and go with what was intended.

Let me ask you this: if Game Freak does make an announcement about X and says that Y is supposed to happen instead of X, why should we care about X? X should not be in the game so why should we simulate it?

Of course, that's assuming you care about the simulation in the first place. I don't. Why should I?

 

[the_artic_one]

X should not be in the game so why should we simulate it?

Because it is in the game and all the intention in the world won't change that.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Why should I care if it is in the game? My concern is whether it should be there. IMO, 99.9% of what is in the game should be in the game. The other 0.1% is this glitch.

 

[the_artic_one]

Because we claim to play said game and by omitting the unavoidable glitches in the game from our simulator we are no longer playing it.

Like you said before, shoddy is only a venue, it is like an interface mod for the game. But when you modify things other than the interface, you are not playing the game, you are playing a mod. There's nothing wrong with playing a mod (people on Doug's CaP server do it all the time), but you can't claim to be playing the standard metagame.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

I don't care if we play the game we've been given or not. I care that we play the game that was intended, and most of the time, the game that we've been given is the game that was intended. The only exception I have is this glitch.

 

[Tleilax]

Can we not simply claim to emulate PBR? The glitch does not occur there, and we can keep the battling we have now. If I recall correctly, the early implementation of the sleep clause was inspired by Pokemon Stadium, so there is precedent. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but so I've heard.

 

[the_artic_one]

You forget that PBR doesn't have alternate forms and has 70% hypnosis accuracy.

I don't care if we play the game we've been given or not. I care that we play the game that was intended, and most of the time, the game that we've been given is the game that was intended. The only exception I have is this glitch.

I don't care what you want to play since you obviously want to play a mod. I care what smogon should consider "standards".

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

And why shouldn't we play a mod? Why should we have to play a simulator?

 

[obi]

If we're willing to mod Pokemon, then developer intent is still irrelevant, because we become the developers. In other words, then we can decide "I don't want a game with critical hits, so let's get rid of them.". Either way, your claims to developer intent are irrelevant.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

We can also decide to follow developer intent, but you've already dismissed that as an option.

Sigh. Even though we have entirely different approaches, my position is actually not much different from yours. You want to follow the code no matter what and I want to follow the code (the best definition of intent available for 99.9% of the game) except for this glitch. If it weren't for this glitch, our positions--or rather, the results of our positions--would be exactly the same.

I still don't understand why playing a simulator is the only option, though. I'd still like to know why we have no other choice but to play a simulator.

• 'It's the way we've always done it'? Not acceptable. Tradition isn't a good enough reason to not change when better options are available. (FYI, I go to tradition to justify not implementing the glitch because there are no better options available IMO.)
• 'There's no other way to define intent' or 'we can't go by intent'? I already disagree with those premises. I don't think we should play a game that was not meant to be played. If I wanted to follow a simulator to a T, then I wouldn't want anything that's not in the game because that wouldn't be what was meant to be played.
  
  'Then we can't have tiers or clauses or anything like that.' Then what's the point of us even being here? We need those things in order to make Pokemon competitive. After all, 'if we follow the message of the game, it shouldn't matter if they're using a Garchomp and a Manaphy. Just train Pikachu hard enough and trust in the power of friendship, and you'll prevail,' right? Yeah, just keep believing that. We all know that that doesn't fly in a serious cartridge competition.
  
  We can still choose to set the competitive rules while still staying true to the in-battle mechanics that were intended. Yes, we would have the ability to decide against the original developer's intent if we became the developers, but that doesn't mean we'd have to use it. We can keep the original developer's intended mechanics along with the rules, and I'd gladly take that over a simulator with the rules any day of the week.

Again, you seem to believe that a simulator is our only feasible option, but I adamantly disagree with that.

 

[the_artic_one]

If we're not simulating, we're not playing pokemon. Nobody says that you personally have to play pokemon. But Smogon is a site dedicated to competitive pokemon meaning that, by definition, we have to play it.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Playing Pokemon automatically has to mean playing 'the game we're given?' You should know by now that I don't agree with that. It doesn't have to be that way.

If you still think that it does have to be that way, though, then I guess we have to agree to disagree on that. I've exhausted all of my current arguments on the matter; I know when I'm ultimately beat.

EDIT: Just one final question on the matter and I swear that's it: Would you EVER depart from the simulation?


That said, I still think we should try to prevent this from happening in the first place. Tangerine, would you mind explaining your proposed clause in greater detail? I proposed my own clause earlier; I'd like to see what you're thinking on the matter.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I won't even attempt to decipher the game maker's intent. I do have personal opinions about it, but it's really irrelevant here. If "acid weather" has been proven to exist in the game -- then it exists in the game. I'm not going to call it a "glitch" or anything else. It's a part of the game. I don't really care if it's intentional or not.

However, there are TONS of minor inconsistencies between the game mechanics and Shoddy Battle mechanics. Shoddy Battle programmers have tried very hard to fix as many inconsistencies as possible. But, we simply cannot fix all of them immediately. Each programmer has to prioritize work, and decide how they want to spend their programming time. There is no central "Shoddy Battle Project Manager" that decides how programmers spend their time. It's up to each programmer.

This "acid weather" inconsistency is very low-priority for me. Unless there is a significant clamor in the community for this to be fixed immediately -- I don't see myself working on this for a while. There are LOTS of other inconsistencies that are more important, in my opinion.

That does not mean that some other programmer can't fix it immediately. That's one of the great things about Shoddy Battle's open-source code base. Anyone can change the code. I put many fixes on the Smogon University server that come from programmers other than myself.

I have just recently spent quite bit of time working on some other bugs related to weather -- and I suggest that if someone tackles this, they really need to get familiar with how various StatusEffects interact in Shoddy Battle. But, I'm certain that "acid weather" can be implemented in Shoddy Battle, if someone puts their mind to it. Perhaps, I'll do it sometime down the road. But right now, this is nowhere on my To-Do List.

 

[Hipmonlee]

It seems to me that the only broken aspect of this glitch is Cherrim and Castform forcing draws. The simplest solution is to ban those two pokemon.

Otherwise I cant see any reason to think this glitch is worth banning. The set up required is elaborate and it can be avoided by your opponent if they just dont switch against pursuiters.

I dont know all the shoddy glitches though, but this one does seem reasonably significant. Pursuit and hail teams are common enough that this could alter peoples battling strategy in every day battling. To be honest I am unaware of any other glitches that would have that much of an impact. But on the other hand, I am not really aware of all that many glitches.

Pursuit hitting before Uturn I guess is the only thing that is more pressing if that hasnt actually been fixed in the last month or so.

Have a nice day.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I say we treat it like any other shoddy bug and play without it until it gets implemented. (re: iron ball, klutz, etc) That means any soul out there that feels like implementing it can, and when Doug gets around to it, he can, but until then, it's kinda irrelevant.

 

[TheMaskedNitpicker]

If our goal is to truly emulate the game as it is, a couple of things need to be changed right now.

1. Sleep Clause, as it stands, alters the code of the game. Nowhere in Platinum is there a mechanic such that if you've put one of your opponents to sleep, trying to put other to sleep will result in failure. This is currently an easily fixable 'bug' in Shoddy that needs to be rectified immediately. Either Sleep Clause should be removed entirely, or a different 'outside the game' solution needs to be put in place.

Such a solution would likely take the form of an instant loss for the player that violates the terms of the clause. This would need to include situations in which a player 'accidentally' puts a second opponent to sleep through the use of Metronome, Magic Coat, Psycho Shift, etc. The main problem I see with this solution is that if one of your opponents cannot switch and is locked into using a sleep-inducing move (with Enocre), you can obtain an instant win by switching in another of your Pokemon, causing your opponent to violate the clause. For this reason, I think it would be much safer to eliminate the Sleep Clause entirely.

2. Freeze clause as it exists also changes game mechanics. There's really no valid workaround for this one though, so it just needs to be removed.

(There exist Pokemon games that do contain a Sleep and Freeze clause as Shoddy currently implements them (PBR, for instance), but according to EeveeTrainer's original post, it's vitally important that we simulate exactly one Pokemon engine, not a hybrid of multiple engines.)

If, on the other hand, we want to keep these clauses as they are, then there is precedence for clauses that alter the game code. Since this glitch is potentially game-breaking, there should be a clause that prevents it from occuring. If someone wants to spend the time to code the glitch into Shoddy, that's their perogative, but either it needs to be clausable or the Sleep and Freeze clauses (and perhaps some others) need an immediate overhaul.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

If our goal is to truly emulate the game as it is, a couple of things need to be changed right now.

1. Sleep Clause, as it stands, alters the code of the game. Nowhere in Platinum is there a mechanic such that if you've put one of your opponents to sleep, trying to put other to sleep will result in failure. This is currently an easily fixable 'bug' in Shoddy that needs to be rectified immediately. Either Sleep Clause should be removed entirely, or a different 'outside the game' solution needs to be put in place.

Such a solution would likely take the form of an instant loss for the player that violates the terms of the clause. This would need to include situations in which a player 'accidentally' puts a second opponent to sleep through the use of Metronome, Magic Coat, Psycho Shift, etc. The main problem I see with this solution is that if one of your opponents cannot switch and is locked into using a sleep-inducing move (with Enocre), you can obtain an instant win by switching in another of your Pokemon, causing your opponent to violate the clause. For this reason, I think it would be much safer to eliminate the Sleep Clause entirely.

2. Freeze clause as it exists also changes game mechanics. There's really no valid workaround for this one though, so it just needs to be removed.

(There exist Pokemon games that do contain a Sleep and Freeze clause as Shoddy currently implements them (PBR, for instance), but according to EeveeTrainer's original post, it's vitally important that we simulate exactly one Pokemon engine, not a hybrid of multiple engines.)

If, on the other hand, we want to keep these clauses as they are, then there is precedence for clauses that alter the game code. Since this glitch is potentially game-breaking, there should be a clause that prevents it from occuring. If someone wants to spend the time to code the glitch into Shoddy, that's their perogative, but either it needs to be clausable or the Sleep and Freeze clauses (and perhaps some others) need an immediate overhaul.

In all fairness, this issue has been brought up many times before. Obi has always been a proponent of treating Sleep Clause via an external 'forfeit' condition, meaning that the perpetrator of multiple sleeps automatically loses the match, and I'm inclined to agree with such a policy as it would be more consistent with the game mechanics. However, as you've alluded to, with the introduction of any new end-game condition, we would need to be clear with how to deal with potential abuse of the condition. Although Wobbuffet is only allowed in Ubers, there is still a theoretical, albeit rare Mean Look / Encore / Yawn setup or something similar that could possibly activate the condition through underhand tactics in any tier. Would we punish the sleep inducer in such a situation, or consider it to be a self-inflicted sleep?

As for eliminating Sleep Clause entirely, I think that would lead to more problems than it is worth, but that's just me.

 

[haunter]

Either it's a fact or calling Shoddybattle a simulator is a lie.

"Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected physical or abstract system."
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulator

That a Pokemon simulator should attempt to be accurate to the game mechanics is a definitional truth. If it doesn't, it's not a simulator.

Well Obi, although I can see what your point is, I think that assuming that we are accepting the definition of "simulator" you posted, we should immediately ask ourselves if we consider this glitch a "key characteristic" of the system we intend to simulate. Personally I don't believe this glitch can be considerd a "key characteristic".

Secondly, as TheMaskedNitpicker pointed out, if we want to emulate the game exactly as it is coded on Nintendo cartridges, then we should not implement any sort of clause on shoddy.

I don't think that our goal is to emulate the game as it is. The welcome message in the home page of the site says "Smogon is a Pokémon website and community specializing in the art of competitive battling". I don't think Nintendo cares about competitive battling, and so, if we want to be consistent with our specialization, then we should accept the risk of moving away from the way the game is coded.

That being said, I think that the solution proposed by TheMaskedNitpicker is the way to go.

If someone wants to spend the time to code the glitch into Shoddy, that's their perogative, but either it needs to be clausable or the Sleep and Freeze clauses (and perhaps some others) need an immediate overhaul.

 

[the_artic_one]

This would need to include situations in which a player 'accidentally' puts a second opponent to sleep through the use of Metronome, Magic Coat, Psycho Shift, etc. The main problem I see with this solution is that if one of your opponents cannot switch and is locked into using a sleep-inducing move (with Enocre), you can obtain an instant win by switching in another of your Pokemon, causing your opponent to violate the clause.

I was under the impression that sleep effects not controlled by the player don't count toward sleep clause, in my mind, an opponent encoring you into spore is the same as them using rest, they are the ones to blame. Isn't that how people on wifi implement sleep clause? Also, using sleep talk and psycho shift on the same set should be illegal.

 

[Cathy]

If our goal is to truly emulate the game as it is, a couple of things need to be changed right now.

1. Sleep Clause, as it stands, alters the code of the game. Nowhere in Platinum is there a mechanic such that if you've put one of your opponents to sleep, trying to put other to sleep will result in failure. This is currently an easily fixable 'bug' in Shoddy that needs to be rectified immediately. Either Sleep Clause should be removed entirely, or a different 'outside the game' solution needs to be put in place.

Such a solution would likely take the form of an instant loss for the player that violates the terms of the clause. This would need to include situations in which a player 'accidentally' puts a second opponent to sleep through the use of Metronome, Magic Coat, Psycho Shift, etc. The main problem I see with this solution is that if one of your opponents cannot switch and is locked into using a sleep-inducing move (with Enocre), you can obtain an instant win by switching in another of your Pokemon, causing your opponent to violate the clause. For this reason, I think it would be much safer to eliminate the Sleep Clause entirely.

2. Freeze clause as it exists also changes game mechanics. There's really no valid workaround for this one though, so it just needs to be removed.

(There exist Pokemon games that do contain a Sleep and Freeze clause as Shoddy currently implements them (PBR, for instance), but according to EeveeTrainer's original post, it's vitally important that we simulate exactly one Pokemon engine, not a hybrid of multiple engines.)

If, on the other hand, we want to keep these clauses as they are, then there is precedence for clauses that alter the game code. Since this glitch is potentially game-breaking, there should be a clause that prevents it from occuring. If someone wants to spend the time to code the glitch into Shoddy, that's their perogative, but either it needs to be clausable or the Sleep and Freeze clauses (and perhaps some others) need an immediate overhaul.

I am not partial to the clauses being implemented as their currently are, and I would not be opposed to changing them to respect game mechanics.

The only reason it hasn't been done is that it's a very complex issue requiring plenty of research to decide which engine we want to implement -- whether the advantages of having the clauses outweigh any assorted disadvantages and so on. Also certain corner cases need to be hammered out in a fair and presumably subtle way. So basically I disagree with your assessment that it can fixed immediately, but I agree it needs to be fixed.

I don't even support Freeze Clause being used at all.

So just so there's no confusion, I am not supporting these clauses as a matter of policy.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

Here's my opinion on the clauses:

When it comes to the clauses, I believe that you should be responsible only for what you can control. If you violate the clauses through something outside of your control, then I don't think it should be a violation.

Sleep Clause. My concern here would be if you had the choice to select and intended to select two sleep-inducing moves that resulted in two of the opponent's Pokemon falling asleep. Therefore, if Sleep Clause is violated through:

• Metronome? Randomly-selected move. No violation.
• Sleep Talk? You control the moveset, but the move is still selected at random. However, if the other selectable moves are sleep-inducers, then the choice of using Sleep Talk represents the choice of selecting a move that will always induce sleep, provided that it hits of course. (Sleep Talk can't select everything, remember.) If only one of the selectable moves is not a sleep-inducer (ex. Rest), then the choice is not completely in your control. Unless the only moves in the moveset selectable by Sleep Talk are sleep-inducing moves, there is no violation.
• Assist? The principle here is the same as Sleep Talk, only there are up to 17 more moves to choose from, making it a little harder to abuse. Still, the application should be the same. Unless the only moves in the moveset selectable by Assist are sleep-inducing moves, there is no violation.
• Encore? This one is tricky. I'm sure someone will disagree, but I believe that the choice is completely in your control. If you don't choose to switch, then you choose to stay in and use a move that induces Sleep. If you're trapped, however, then the choice is no longer completely in your control. Unless your Pokemon is trapped, inducing Sleep to two Pokemon via Encore is a violation.

Yawn is the obvious special case here due to the delay. For me, though, the intent to put the opponent to sleep doesn't change. I think we should treat Yawn the same as any other Sleep move for the purposes of Sleep Clause.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of situations that could come up concerning Sleep Clause, but I hope that that framework will make the other situations easier to apply to Sleep Clause. Please tell me if there is something you disagree with or if something could be improved. If we're going to change the enforcement of Sleep Clause, then we have to be absolutely clear on what constitutes a violation. We're deciding automatic wins and losses here; we can't afford to make a single mistake.

As for Freeze Clause, the highest possible probability of freeze is 20%. Intent, in this case, isn't completely clear. Though I'm sure that most of us at one time or another have intended to go for a freeze with an Ice move, even when those moves hit the freeze isn't guaranteed. You can't say 'I'm going to freeze you with this move, assuming it hits' and expect it to work 100% of the time. The freezes themselves are out of your control and determined by the RNG. For those reasons, I believe that we should drop Freeze Clause.

And what about the Evasion and OHKO Clauses? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those clauses currently enforced by making those moves automatically fail in battle? If that is the case, then that needs to change. Either keep them from being added to the team in the Team Builder to begin with or enforce the clauses in the same manner as Sleep Clause.

I do agree with Colin's sentiment that the clauses can't be fixed immediately, though. Those aren't exactly quick fixes.



As for the weather/Gravity/Uproar/Trick Room, if we're going to clause it, then we will have to wait until everything is known about how it is triggered. All of it is still relatively new, particularly the mess with Gravity/Uproar/Trick Room. I've been keeping up with the Stark thread and I STILL don't know how that gets triggered. The initial account I read is that it occurred after a Fury Swipes... @_@

 

[Tleilax]

After thinking about it a bit more, I decided that if possible, and the programmers wish to do so, the glitch should be implemented. A big part of Shoddy for many I know is testing teams before building them, seeing how they work in battle before taking the time to create the team. This glitch changes how cartridge battles operate, and to not feature it would mean that teams would not function the same as they do on cartridge, skewing any chance of using the simulation to test a team in the making in an accurate environment.

However, I think that the current ladder system should not be replaced. Just a look at the poll shows that many more are in favor of playing without it. Adding a clause that disallows the glitch weather, or even a new server for it, would keep as many people happy as possible. People can play without the glitch weather, enjoying Pokemon in the IDEAL battle environment, and those who want to keep their matches accurate can do so as well. It doesn't seem like it would be incredibly difficult to do. Simply add the coding of the glitch while keeping a copy of what we have now. I think it's a fair compromise.

Regardless of what is decided here, there's no point in implementing the glitch until we understand the full mechanics of how it works, and it's full extent. There's no point in adding something that isn't totally understood, especially with so many variables present. We may discover new information that completely changes how we view the acid weather, and it would likely save us a lot of time and potential frustration to hold off.

EDIT: Perhaps for competitive purposes, we treat battles as though they were between DP, but allowing the Platinum movesets. This is quite easy to imagine, the justification being that Pokemon trained in Platinum are traded to Diamond and Pearl for battle purposes. This allows changes to movesets to be accounted for so the metagame stays intact for the most part. Hypnosis accuracy is bumped back up to account for battles between DP. This would mean, however, that Skymin and Rotom-A would no longer be allowed. While Skymin's absence would have little impact, Rotom-A being disallowed might have more consequences. However, I feel this choice would be the most beneficial in terms of preserving the game as people enjoy it.

 

[chaos]

I will write more later (I'm at work).

There is no emergency. Do not implement the glitch. It is a waste of our time, and detrimental to competitive Pokemon.