1. The moderators of this forum are Jellicent and Lutra.
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  3. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Gen 1 Freeze Clause Removed from Gen1 Random Battle

Discussion in 'Ruins of Alph' started by Barbows, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. Barbows

    Barbows

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    So it seems Zarel has removed freeze clause from gen1 random battles to make the rulesets consistent across all Random Battle tiers : https://github.com/Zarel/Pokemon-Showdown/pull/3871

    That honestly sounds like a valid reason to do it, but I've seen some long time users complain about the removal making the tier even more affected by rng than it already is. I myself find it makes the tier quite uncompetitive and would rather have the clause back.

    I haven't seen any post about it yet, so i thought i'd post this thread to see how the community as a whole feels about this. Do you guys think it's fine or does it make the tier too uncompetitive?

    EDIT: It also goes to show that having freeze clause back on would make the ruleset consistent all across RBY, so consistencywise perhaps it wouldn't be so bad
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2017
  2. Honko

    Honko he of many honks
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Programmeris a Contributor to Smogon

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,365
    I think it's fine. Gen 1 Randbats is what it is whether you have freeze clause or not; there's a huge amount of RNG variance in each game, so if you want to enjoy it you have to focus on maximizing your odds over dozens of games instead of what happens in each individual one. Freezes are just another small factor in that, whether it's limited to one per game or not. I wouldn't mind if the clause were re-added, but I also think that if making individual Gen 1 Randbats matches more balanced were a priority, there are a lot of other changes that would have a bigger impact than Freeze Clause. Caterpie, for instance.
    The Idiot Ninja, Crystal_ and Tiksi like this.
  3. LibertarianMaster

    LibertarianMaster

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Adjusting levels or even eliminating mons like caterpie and weedle line and magikarp is one thing (although they make a good sleep absorbers).
    Removing freeze clause is another. The fact that caterpie sucks doesn't justify freeze clause removal.
    Barbows likes this.
  4. The Immortal

    The Immortal They Don't Want None
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon Social Media Contributoris a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    Other Metas Leader

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    5,884
    I accepted it only because Crystal_ took on the responsibility of running those old gens Random Battles. But, if OU has Freeze Clause, Random Battle should have it as well because its based on the standard tiers. In hindsight, "consistency across generations" wasn't a good reason and I shouldn't have accepted the change.
    Typhlito and Bughouse like this.
  5. Crystal_

    Crystal_
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    To be honest it's just irrelevant. It doesn't remotely make the tier uncompetitive let alone change it for the most part.

    I don't think that we should make a big deal out of this, consistency across tiers of the same generation is just as valid as an argument to keep Freeze Clause on, but the other randbats that I changed were neither consistent with different tiers of the same gen or consistent across randbats. I know this thread is merely about RBY but my PR wasn't meant to target a single randbats gen specifically, so I shouldn't be treated as if it was. At the end of the day, it's just a pretty inconsequential rule.

    That being said, Gen 1 OU has self-ko clause while randbats does not. Where's the consistency here?
  6. LibertarianMaster

    LibertarianMaster

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    If it was irrelevant and didn't impact the game nobody would have complained about it in the RoA, barbows wouldn't start this thread and got 8 likes from smogon members.

    Does anything prevent people in charge from implementing this clause to randbats? Again, just like with caterpie, because something in the tier is broken/inconsitent/whatever doesn't justify another broken/inconsisten/whatever feature.
  7. Barbows

    Barbows

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    Aside from what LibertarianMaster said

    I would also like to remember that getting mons like caterpie on your team on a random battle usually means at least 4 mons from the rest will be either ou or uber (and I only said "usually" because I don't know the actual code, but anyone who plays this seriously knows this) so having some balance in gen1 randbats is a priority.

    On every format you play the most effectively when maximizing the odds, no one here is focusing on what happens in each individual game. RBY in itself already has a huge variance, just look at how many tours have bo3/5s with in comparison to other gens. The argument here shouldn't be how big rng in general already is, but rather how big unrestricted freeze is. And the fact that something can revert or create winning positions in one or two turns of unskilled play isn't a small factor in any balanced meta. Notice I said unskilled play, I think going for the freeze is a valid strategy, I just don't think anyone should be rewarded with basically a free ko (getting hit by a fire type doesn't happen 99% of the time) more than once in a battle, even less when it just happens instead of being played for. Also notice how other rng related things aren't as likely to happen on a given turn and/or aren't as impactful: Crits don't mean a free ko ; 1/256 misses are basically an unexpected turn of full paralysis ; having caterpie gets you a top tier rest of the team ; ohko moves don't hit faster mons (and only mew is a fast user and you can paralyse it) 30% acc and has the cost of not doing anything that turn if you miss, while chosing an ice move deals damage while having 1/3 chance of having the same outcome of an ohko move (so such moves have effective counterplay, where the number of sets that have ice moves is much higher than the number or ice type mons in a team, which means there's not much you can do most of the time to prevent or mitigate an ice-spam strategy).

    So imo freeze is actually a big factor and should be treated likewise. It's not that it's outright uncompetitive but it's unhealthy to the meta

    I think it's clear that if I find freeze to be a big thing, then I don't think this was an inconsequential rule lol but I didn't really mean to treat the ruling as if it was meant to target a single randbats gen. I just think we all agree that a balanced meta is a thing we should always favor before other things like consistency across tiers and if the community finds something is unhealthy to the metagame, then it's removed/nerfed. If in the end there's not enough support to warrant a change back to the clause (be it people disagree that it's unhealthy or aren't interested enough in the discussion or if I was wrong and rules consistency is valued over a balanced meta in case of not so popular formats) then i'd be ok with keeping it. I just decided to open up the discussion about this topic, because I didn't find any specific discussion about this and to me it's a big enough issue to be discussed about.

    And as far as arguments about consistency go:

    Gen1 OU doesn't have self-ko clause on ps main server, where most (if not all) gen1 randbats games are played in the ladder

    I'm sorry, this post turned out bigger than i thought it would :c
    LibertarianMaster likes this.
  8. LibertarianMaster

    LibertarianMaster

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    So... any new thoughts or arguments? If not then when we can expect reimplementation of the freeze clause?

    Actually it's no longer true from what I've ovserved... Another thing that could be fixed (having a trash mon increasing the quality of the other members of the team) BTW it doesn't have to necessary be ou, preevos of most ou mons are usually just as good as the final evolution (ie kadabra, haunter, staryu). Movepools are pretty much the same, and the level differences mitigate lower base stats.
    Barbows likes this.
  9. Mr.E

    Mr.E im the best
    is a Pre-Contributoris a Past SPL Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    5,046
    just stop trying to "balance" randomness already tbh
    AM likes this.
  10. Barbows

    Barbows

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21
    If "balancing" randomness wasn't desirable, there would be no reason to make the mons levels differ between tiers, having specific sets defined or to strive for a competitive metagame at all, this is not CC.
    The point of this thread is to decide whether freeze clause removal is unhealthy competitivewise, and I'm sorry, but that comment is not helpful at all, you either make solid points or just don't say anything at all, please.
  11. Katie Cruel

    Katie Cruel

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    I know I'm about a month late here, but I really think Gen 1 randbats needs Freeze Clause. Gen 1 Freeze is definitely the most powerful thing in the meta, since it's impossible to thaw out without being hit by a fire attack. Fire Attacks are rare and it's possible your opponent doesn't have any, while it's very likely 2 or 3 members of your team are packing Blizzard. As Barbows points out, no other random RNG factor in Gen 1 is nearly as powerful. Significantly, Freeze is matchup agnostic - without Freeze Clause, it's never safe to send any Pokemon in against a predicted Ice attack unless it's already paralyzed, poisoned, or burned. However, those factors depend on your opponent, so someone who would wish to abuse Freeze could simply spam Ice moves and easily avoid using Twave, Body Slam, Fire Blast and Toxic. Freeze Clause at least introduces some elements of counterplay to what would otherwise be a surprisingly viable strategy.

    Since Gen 1 OU also implements Freeze clause already, I also think it makes sense to make Gen 1 randbats an exception and enable Freeze Clause there too. I think if we're trying to change the rules on this tier by aligning them with the rules of another tier, it makes sense to use Gen 1 OU rather than other Gen randbats as a template. Freeze in Generations 2 and onwards is a different beast, since you can possibly even thaw out the same turn, and leftovers adds passive recovery. So a freeze in later generations is not a free kill or setup opportunity in the same way that it is in Gen 1.
    Barbows and LibertarianMaster like this.

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