Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
This thread will be moderated to keep discussion focused.
Right now the rules on illegal orders are demonstrably abusable. Is there any way to avoid this, and is a full system overhaul in order? Anyway, the current system is below.
[box]Illegal Orders:
If you give a set of orders which are impossible for you to perform at the start of the round, you must reorder. Illegal substitutions are to be ignored.[/box] (If someone has a full quote please pass it on so I can edit it in there)
OK, keep it clean, this subject has in the past been relatively touchy.
Maybe just add in that the both players have to reorder instead of just the one that did it so the other person does not have the advantage because he may see the other person's actions. Other then that I don't know how to help and even the idea I have is not that great.
Something is wrong here—if you order illegally first and your opponent doesn't catch it, you get to reorder with 20/20 hindsight as to possible exploitations. furthermore, if the ref doesn't catch it, the player is given a 'best of both worlds' scenario — they can fail to point out their illegal orders and get away with cheating, or, if something goes badly, they can say 'oops i had illegal orders' and get a free reorder. When this used to be brought up, i was always on the side of 'if your opponent has illegal orders, you should be able to catch them' but i've since soured to our current method of handling them. If a /certain user/ has on multiple circumstances actually argued with the ref that their orders WERE ILLEGAL (as in the ref was saying they weren't but the player who made the orders is trying to say they were to get a reorder) we're obviously doing this fucking wrong.
I understand that in-game, illegal orders are reissued, but there is no information gained between the first and second orders. Here, there is. My solution? Illegal order = struggle; target randomly selected between opponents.
Something is wrong here—if you order illegally first and your opponent doesn't catch it, you get to reorder with 20/20 hindsight as to possible exploitations. furthermore, if the ref doesn't catch it, the player is given a 'best of both worlds' scenario — they can fail to point out their illegal orders and get away with cheating, or, if something goes badly, they can say 'oops i had illegal orders' and get a free reorder. When this used to be brought up, i was always on the side of 'if your opponent has illegal orders, you should be able to catch them' but i've since soured to our current method of handling them. If a /certain user/ has on multiple circumstances actually argued with the ref that their orders WERE ILLEGAL (as in the ref was saying they weren't but the player who made the orders is trying to say they were to get a reorder) we're obviously doing this fucking wrong.
I understand that in-game, illegal orders are reissued, but there is no information gained between the first and second orders. Here, there is. My solution? Illegal order = struggle; target randomly selected between opponents.
I readily agree with your solution to a point. I think it should be limited to certain types of matches. Gym Qualifier? Yours works. Gym Match? Yours works. Tournament? Yours works. Role Play? Referee's discretion. Everything else? Allow a reorder.
I understand that in-game, illegal orders are reissued, but there is no information gained between the first and second orders. Here, there is. My solution? Illegal order = struggle; target randomly selected between opponents.
This should only be considered if the opponent has ordered after the illegal moves were used because if the ref catches it first the player who did it can reorder without the match getting confusing because the actions were made illegally by the person moving first so the opponent would already know the actions used. Other than that I can completely support your idea.
Kingmitus: Right now in illegal orders both players reorder if the person reordered ordered first. It still gives an insight to the second player's moves, and lets a player see things like the fact that their substitution had a giant loophole. Right now, it's completely uneven in terms of who benefits, and it's not on.
=====
I actually have multiple issues with the current system as it stands.
Inconsistency:
Current rules lack this. Illegal orders are entitled to a reorder, whilst an illegal sibstitution is just ignored, for no apparent reason. What justification is there for this?
Abusability:
Not mentioning any names, but to put it blankly there is no reason to make legal orders when ordering first. You either get noticed by the opponent somehow, and have to reorder, or you don't get noticed, and you can see your opponent's actions, which in turn lets you look into their plan. In a most unfortunate scenario, a ref might miss the illegality in a set of moves, ref, and the opponent may order. At which point the first player knows the plans of the opponent, and their future plans. Heck, you might never mention it, because you've just spotted a way to break your opponent's strategy. If that's not abusable, then bugger me because I don't know what is.
Uncertainty:
The definition of an illegal order is, for a lack of a better word, "Vague". I'm going to take a scenario with all the important bits, just to show how vague it gets...
68 HP
57 EN
Status: Taunt [4a], Paralysis [10%]
23 HP
42 EN
Status: Paralysis [15%]
Player 1 controls the Emolga, Player 2 controls the Banette. This is a Switch = KO match.
Now then, it's Player 2 to order first. Let's say his orders are...
[box]Endure ~ Shadow Ball ~ Shadow Ball[/box]
These seem like reasonable orders for being made in 10 seconds. However, Player 1 does something interesting...
[box]Volt Switch ~ Toxic ~ Thunderbolt[/box]
These orders are rather intriguing. Since they are both legal and illegal at once. Illegal, because Toxic is blocked by Taunt. But legal, since Volt Switch clears. But illegal if paralysis occurs. We've successfully reached a state of an order set being both legal AND illegal at once. It's like Schrodingers Cat, except it doesn't involve torturing vermin. This can be extended further - what if Player 2 had the substitution "IF Volt Switch, THEN Protect AND Push Back ONCE"? Then there are enough options to cause chaos.
Or in simple terms: Due to the existance of hax, it is impossible to tell whether or not all order sets are legal and not in many cases.
===
Now that I've had my rant, I'm actually making a proposal:
[box]Orders which cannot be performed are replaced by struggle. All substitutions that are of a legal syntax activate, those which call a move which is illegal.[/box]
There, that seems to solve the issues I've raised quite neatly. Of course, I'm open to other ideas.
Can someone please link me to a battle where a players abused this? Where you can say, for sure, that it wasn't a mistake.
I mean c'mon, I will say this again: players make mistakes. Hell, refs make mistakes on a regular basis and they have to go and do everything again, why should player's mistakes be punished?
The ref has the obligation of checking the orders and order a reorder if it is illegal. Same goes with the opposing player. If none do, then they also make the same mistake. Should we go and punish all of them? The first player for making a mistake, the second player for not paying attention and the ref for not doing his job?
And in the case of a dubious ruling? does the player have the obligation to know where single present and future ruling known to men to make no mistakes? So now he has to check on IRC before doing anything? C'mon gimme a break.
If you are afraid of abuse, add a clause that says "if someone is caught maliciously abusing this rule, he/she will automatically lose the battle and may be warned given the circumstances" and keep your bloody eyes open. But to say it ends up with struggle is just awful since it:
a) punishes the player for a mistype or a mistake. If you don't feel that is a problem, I can go and list countless mistakes each and every one that posted here (including myself) had done in the past that would be punished as "abuse". Matches otherwise won would be lost simply because the player with the best strategy typed detect instead of protect, or forgot that Pokemon Stadium doesn't have external rock source...
b) treats everyone as people unworthy of trust, since you will assume that the guy is abusing, as you are punishing the dude regardless the reasons for the illegal order. If you say Struggle, a 5BP 40% recoil move, isn't a punishment then please lurk more.
c) Makes the game mush less user-friendly for new players that will make said mistakes on a regular basis;
d) Makes the dubious ruling problems a whole deal bigger, since one of them can fuck a match even harder than before.
e) Ignores ingame precedent entirely.
We don't have a problem with abuse. This is being mentioned hypothetically and yet the answer is rather drastic for a problem that doesn't exist or at least not enough to make it worth the trouble. It's the counter-farming thing all over again.
The only way to guarantee that something is never abused, is to make it impossible to abuse. We don't need to know that something has been abused in order to know that it is abusable, and if something is abusable, that's bad. Is that understood?
I mean c'mon, I will say this again: players make mistakes. Hell, refs make mistakes on a regular basis and they have to go and do everything again, why should player's mistakes be punished?
And how does making a mistake and not getting caught until the other player has ordered entitle you to make alternative orders with knowledge about your opponent's plan? Hell, if you happened to have spare subs in your first orders, suddenly you get to make a free sub against the worst move they were going to use against you!
The ref has the obligation of checking the orders and order a reorder if it is illegal. Same goes with the opposing player. If none do, then they also make the same mistake. Should we go and punish all of them? The first player for making a mistake, the second player for not paying attention and the ref for not doing his job?
If you're going to put it that way, then ... well, the ref is already punished by having to redo the round and the player who ordered second is already punished by the first player getting to reorder based on knowledge of his plans, so unless we want to discriminate, we either have to remove those punishments (in which case there becomes no such thing as illegal orders and the system breaks), or punish the first player too!
And in the case of a dubious ruling? does the player have the obligation to know where single present and future ruling known to men to make no mistakes? So now he has to check on IRC before doing anything? C'mon gimme a break.
If the player is in doubt, he should check (it's the sensible thing to do), and then proj mods such as myself should write it down in a data thread if it isn't already written in a data thread. If the player isn't in doubt, then he can believe what he wants, but when the evidence for the ruling against him is shoved in his face, he shouldn't come crying to me, that's for sure!
Frosty, while I am still fairly undecided on the matter (admittedly leaning slightly towards Dogfish's solution), I would like to address a couple of your points.
a) punishes the player for a mistype or a mistake. If you don't feel that is a problem, I can go and list countless mistakes each and every one that posted here (including myself) had done in the past that would be punished as "abuse". Matches otherwise won would be lost simply because the player with the best strategy typed detect instead of protect, or forgot that Pokemon Stadium doesn't have external rock source...
c) Makes the game mush less user-friendly for new players that will make said mistakes on a regular basis;
Both of these are irrelevant considering illegal subs just get ignored. An illegal sub punishes the player for a mistype (if you want I can pull up a recent battle where that was the case, and cost him quite a large amount of HP). In addition, new players make mistakes on subs, and they are still punished for them.
Basically, the existence of the treatment of illegal subs makes points a) and c) irrelevant.
I won't name names, but I know I was involved in a high ranking battle where the opponent made illegal orders with an easily abusable substitution, and I abused the substitution as expected. The orders were then pointed out to be illegal, and the new orders removed the loophole. This could've been a mistake, but it was not the first time - more to the point, the fact it currently can't be proven to have been abused doesn't nullify the point.
I mean c'mon, I will say this again: players make mistakes. Hell, refs make mistakes on a regular basis and they have to go and do everything again, why should player's mistakes be punished?
A player is punished quite regularly in battle for making a mistake - why is this any different?
The ref has the obligation of checking the orders and order a reorder if it is illegal. Same goes with the opposing player. If none do, then they also make the same mistake. Should we go and punish all of them? The first player for making a mistake, the second player for not paying attention and the ref for not doing his job?
Umm, where the hell did I mention to punish both players and the ref? Yes, the ref should have checked, but I don't advocate punishing them. You're extrapolating an idea - if you have an idea that is "less punishing", then by all means post it - one I remember was the one life system, where you can reorder one set of illegal orders in a match, after that all other illegal orders become struggle.
And in the case of a dubious ruling? does the player have the obligation to know where single present and future ruling known to men to make no mistakes? So now he has to check on IRC before doing anything? C'mon gimme a break.
What dubious ruling? How can a blanket system have rulings? Honestly, you'll need to explain what rulings you're talking about here.
If you are afraid of abuse, add a clause that says "if someone is caught maliciously abusing this rule, he/she will automatically lose the battle and may be warned given the circumstances" and keep your bloody eyes open.
I dislike open-ended rules, they have a weird habit of sparking controversy. Better to get it a flat law rather than judgement here if you ask me.
But to say it ends up with struggle is just awful since it:
a) punishes the player for a mistype or a mistake. If you don't feel that is a problem, I can go and list countless mistakes each and every one that posted here (including myself) had done in the past that would be punished as "abuse". Matches otherwise won would be lost simply because the player with the best strategy typed detect instead of protect,
A lot of things qualify as a mistake - a mistake in writing your orders out is to be frank no different. People make typos between legal moves anyway, this is by no means as harsh as you're making out.
or forgot that Pokemon Stadium doesn't have external rock source...
b) treats everyone as people unworthy of trust, since you will assume that the guy is abusing, as you are punishing the dude regardless the reasons for the illegal order. If you say Struggle, a 5BP 40% recoil move, isn't a punishment then please lurk more.
Trust? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Seriously, it's not a matter of not trusting most people, it's that the system can be abused. I'm assumming you want the current system, given a lack of any alternative idea, so I'm genuinely confused as to how you can support such a babying system.
c) Makes the game mush less user-friendly for new players that will make said mistakes on a regular basis;
Huh, you're bringing up these rulings again. It's been a long time since I saw a dubious ruling in a match on anything other than a sub - and there is both IRC and SQSA if you're uncertain.
Whilst you can want yo comply to in-game standards more, that's an entirely different argument - ASB deviates from standard policy quite a bit fwiw, and my stance is that following in-game is not a high priority.
We don't have a problem with abuse. This is being mentioned hypothetically and yet the answer is rather drastic for a problem that doesn't exist or at least not enough to make it worth the trouble. It's the counter-farming thing all over again.
The false assumption here is that the abuse is just one problem - to be frank, I've mentioned others, such as the very weird way that the definition of illegal can work (Quantum illegality should not be a thing).
From our chat on IRC, we evidently have different views of things. I honestly do not believe it is punishment to have illegal actions replaced by struggle, although I am open to suggestions for a less sudden change. I wouldn't object, for instance, to just replacing them with an action that does nothing but cost a small amount of EN.
First I need to clarify something. Pwnemon brought to my attention the reasons for this discussion, so I have an ammendment to make in my previous post:
<Pwnemon> well then, i guess we've just reached an impasse
<Pwnemon> because i think at that level, 'suck it up, you should know better' is the entirely appropriate response
<Frosty> happens a lot haha
<Pwnemon> (unless he ordered second, in which case just inform him and let him edit)
<Pwnemon> keep in mind i'm only talking about illegal orders and then your opponent orders
<Frosty> okay...uh. that last comment made me not get you. A mistake is still a mistake regardless of when it happens.
<Frosty> how about this
<Frosty> I agree with you that when the current rules for illegal orders when ordering first are iffy with me
<Frosty> ignore the "when"
<Frosty> ever since -CENSORED- pulled that rabbit out of his hat vs -CENSORED-, it made me see the potential for abuse.
<Frosty> so if you are proposing into finding a way to solve the problem with that then we are on the same page, as I agree with you on this. Specially because most refs (like me haha) only check the battle deeply after both battlers ordered, so he can ref.
<Frosty> BUT I don't like the "turn into struggle" proposal.
<Pwnemon> ok
<Frosty> at least not automatically
<Pwnemon> that's fair
<Pwnemon> you think it's too harsh
<Frosty> the thing is: the way the thread was made, made it seem like a crusade against the illegal orders=reorder rule as a whole. And as I said, I like that rule <_<;. hence my answer. But if the thing is just to find out a way to make illegal orders when ordering first less of a problem then you can count me in for figuring out something.
Now let's address stuff:
- - -
Objection said:
The only way to guarantee that something is never abused, is to make it impossible to abuse. We don't need to know that something has been abused in order to know that it is abusable, and if something is abusable, that's bad. Is that understood?
You said something like that for counterfarming and I think it was overturned.
If you want to go and make all things abusable not abusable then I suggest you start now as you have a lot to do.
I just think it isn't worth the trouble and that the solution given brings more harm than good
Objection said:
And how does making a mistake and not getting caught until the other player has ordered entitle you to make alternative orders with knowledge about your opponent's plan? Hell, if you happened to have spare subs in your first orders, suddenly you get to make a free sub against the worst move they were going to use against you!
Agreed completely. But it doesn't justify turning every mistake into struggle.
Objection said:
If the player is in doubt, he should check (it's the sensible thing to do), and then proj mods such as myself should write it down in a data thread if it isn't already written in a data thread. If the player isn't in doubt, then he can believe what he wants, but when the evidence for the ruling against him is shoved in his face, he shouldn't come crying to me, that's for sure!
For a ruling to be given, a dispute must be held previously. What happens if we have a situation with dubious rules without clarification on the DAT? The player may read what is there and have his own conclusions. Sometimes the player doesn't notice there is a doubt. He just reads the DAT and interprets what he read. But then his interpretation is overruled. It happens fairly often (example: tourney match: engineer interpreted that a strong blow may make rest last one less action. It was an acceptable interpretating given what was written, but was overruled. If a similar situation happens and results in an illegal order, will you go and say "you should have known it is that way!"?)
hdoom said:
Both of these are irrelevant considering illegal subs just get ignored. An illegal sub punishes the player for a mistype (if you want I can pull up a recent battle where that was the case, and cost him quite a large amount of HP). In addition, new players make mistakes on subs, and they are still punished for them.
good to know that you were taught manners puppylover! haha (j/k)
puppylover said:
I won't name names, but I know I was involved in a high ranking battle where the opponent made illegal orders with an easily abusable substitution, and I abused the substitution as expected. The orders were then pointed out to be illegal, and the new orders removed the loophole. This could've been a mistake, but it was not the first time - more to the point, the fact it currently can't be proven to have been abused doesn't nullify the point.
is that enough to warrant this? I think a simple warning to the user (I know who is and I have seen similar stuff before from the same person) solves the problem. But I guess if everybody agreed on everything then life would be boring.
puppylover said:
A player is punished quite regularly in battle for making a mistake - why is this any different?
Don't confuse "I failed to notice your strategy" with "I didn't see that there aren't external rock sources". The first means you deserved to lose momentum. The second...I don't think so.
puppylover said:
Umm, where the hell did I mention to punish both players and the ref? Yes, the ref should have checked, but I don't advocate punishing them. You're extrapolating an idea - if you have an idea that is "less punishing", then by all means post it - one I remember was the one life system, where you can reorder one set of illegal orders in a match, after that all other illegal orders become struggle.
1) I didn't say you said the refs needed to be punished. I am just saying that the same line of thought may apply.
2) I am actually on it. Didn't get good results thus far haha. My best idea is precisely what you said about the life system. Now that is something more managable than automatic struggle
puppylover said:
What dubious ruling? How can a blanket system have rulings? Honestly, you'll need to explain what rulings you're talking about here.
If you need to pester Deck to get an answer than the player that had the overruled interpretation doesn't deserve to be punished. Again don't confuse stuff.
puppylover said:
I dislike open-ended rules, they have a weird habit of sparking controversy. Better to get it a flat law rather than judgement here if you ask me.
A lot of things qualify as a mistake - a mistake in writing your orders out is to be frank no different. People make typos between legal moves anyway, this is by no means as harsh as you're making out.
well, good to know that we disagree here. I believe that the battle system should make the better strategy/mons win the game, even if the player forgot that his mon was taunted. You apparently aren't as merciful.
But seriously I know my falacies thank you very much. An ad hominem argument happens when you attack the debator not the argument itself. I attacked your "mistakes should mean struggle and that is that" argument by saying that everybody is doomed to make mistakes, even you, and the struggle solution was a very harsh one. You just need to know a teensy bit about logic and rhetoric to know that it isn't ad hominem.
You are a very nice person. Really. But don't try to play the smartass by pulling logical latin expressions of your hat like that answers and counters anything. You failed to defend why that isn't a harsh solution and prefered to say "cute". Cute. But hardly effective.
puppylover said:
Trust? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? Seriously, it's not a matter of not trusting most people, it's that the system can be abused. I'm assumming you want the current system, given a lack of any alternative idea, so I'm genuinely confused as to how you can support such a babying system.
It is too early to say that I think the current system is failproof. But the way you put it is like the illegal orders rule was the worst thing ever created here. which it isn't.
I would love to propose alternative solutions and I intend to soon, but I had to post that since it was getting a teensy exagerated in my point of view.
puppylover said:
"Old rules apply to Beginner Battles". That was a proponent to the last time I suggested this, thanks for bringing it up ^_^
Huh, you're bringing up these rulings again. It's been a long time since I saw a dubious ruling in a match on anything other than a sub - and there is both IRC and SQSA if you're uncertain.
When was the last time someone had to ask Deck something?
Also IRC is highly reliant on whoever is there. In many occasions when I asked stuff there I got completely different conclusions based on whoever was there.
puppylover said:
The false assumption here is that the abuse is just one problem - to be frank, I've mentioned others, such as the very weird way that the definition of illegal can work (Quantum illegality should not be a thing).
I started posting before you posted for the second time. I only had your first post to work with and that mentions only the abuse.
puppylover said:
From our chat on IRC, we evidently have different views of things. I honestly do not believe it is punishment to have illegal actions replaced by struggle, although I am open to suggestions for a less sudden change. I wouldn't object, for instance, to just replacing them with an action that does nothing but cost a small amount of EN.
again, the fact that people disagree makes stuff a lot more fun!
You want an alternative proposal? I have one. Actually I will just steal yours and adapt a bit.
proposal said:
1) When the illegal order is given by the player ordering last, the ref has to determine a reorder.
2) When the illegal order is given by the player ordering first and the ref or the player ordering last notice and point out it before any other orders, the player ordering first has to reorder
3) When the illegal order is given by the player ordering first, and any other orders were given after that the ref will warn the player at the first time and let him/her reorder. On the subsequent times the illegal order will become struggle.
OBS1 - If the illegality of the order is questionable, to the point of having to ask for an official ruling to a Council Member or Deck Knight then a reorder must be held.
OBS2 - If the player that posted the illegal order was warned for that on other battle less than 1 week before the illegal order and has more than 5 battles finished then the ref will change the action with struggle right away
OBS3 - On Gym Matches or Highlight Matches, when OBS1 doesn't apply, the ref will replace the illegal action with struggle right away. The player should pay 100% attention on those.
OBS4 - If the player is caught maliciously abusing illegal orders when ordering first, not only will it become struggle, but also the player is subject to a formal warn, losing the match or even worse punishments depending on the case and always with the agreement of one member of the council or a mod.
I don't buy this. While i'm with you that Illegal Ordering must be fixed, why does everyone have to assume the worst with all ASBers? I mean, we've had this system for years, and it hasn't popped up yet, even though i can't be the only person who has known for a while that illegal order rules are shit
From that same convo Frosty posted earlier:
[5:11pm] Pwnemon: i won't go as far as DF in saying we need to do it to keep people from abusing the system
[5:11pm] Pwnemon: because i believe our honor code is strong enough that nobody will ever do it intentionally (even though he's right that there's no reason not to)
[5:12pm] Pwnemon: rather, ordering illegally is a fuck-up; usually fuck-ups make the round end worse for you, but ordering illegally makes it end better for you
[5:12pm] Pwnemon: that just doesn't make sense
[5:13pm] Frosty: you can't go and say that all fuck-ups are equal <_<;.
[5:13pm] Pwnemon: no you're right i absolutely can't
[5:14pm] Pwnemon: still, i can say all fuck-ups should be bad
[5:14pm] Pwnemon: forgetting to sub for magic coat in tourney finals made obj lose — a prime example of a fuck-up's just reward
[5:15pm] Pwnemon: but exploiting yarnus's messed up orders almost made SIMON lose
accusing frosty of doing something he has absolutely not done isn't going to make your position stronger or ease tensions any. Fact is, he's right. You make mistakes too. That's not an ad hominem; an ad hominem would be "df44 thinks illegal orders should be changed but he shags sheep so clearly he doesn't know shit"
A lot of this looks fair. However, I have a couple qualms, too.
Overall, i can see the general idea in this proposal, and in opposition to this idea at large, is basically 'no need to be so harsh.' i'd argue that this attitude is well-intentioned—after all, we're playing a game—but the fun of this game is in its seriousness. the less competitive we make the game, the more we turn into Serebii's ASB league. that said, there is a noticeable difference between matches tagged 'ongoing' and otherwise. Rather than creating a complex-as-fuck system like the above and try to apply it to all matches equally, why not just use a hybrid system? Basically:
[box]Since people don't think proposals are real unless you put them in this bbcode:
In matches tagged "Ongoing," in the case of an illegal order, the player that ordered illegally is allowed to reorder (unless it is otherwise specified in the original Battle Tower posts). Illegal subs will be ignored. (Unless otherwise stated in the original Battle Tower posts)
In matches not tagged "Ongoing," in the case of an illegal order, that action is replaced with Struggle. In the case of an illegal substitution, that substitution is ignored.
The creator of a roleplay has the right to determine whether more 'lenient' or 'harsh' illegal order rules will be used.
If the illegality of the order is questionable—to the point of having to ask for an official ruling to a Council Member or Deck Knight—or if the order itself is questionable—and thus interpreted by diktat of a Councillor or Deck Knight—in a way that causes it to be illegal, then a reorder must be held.[/box]
Posting just to say that I agree with Pwnemon's proposal. We shouldn't bother with normal matches and on special matches the players needs to pay attention.
I don't buy this. While i'm with you that Illegal Ordering must be fixed, why does everyone have to assume the worst with all ASBers? I mean, we've had this system for years, and it hasn't popped up yet, even though i can't be the only person who has known for a while that illegal order rules are shit
Let me know when we have a foolproof way of determining (before people have even done anything) which people will abuse stuff if they think they can get away with it and which won't. Until then, I'm going for the safe assumption: if a game mechanic can be abused, it will eventually be abused by someone. That said, making something not abusable is less about punishing the abusers (although they deserve to be punished so it's a nice bonus) and more about keeping the honest honest. You know, in the event that a dishonourable player does sign up for ASB.
Still, if we can't make something impossible to abuse, we can at least punish people who do abuse it. Since problems like these are greater in non-friendlies, Pwnemon's proposal looks solid.
I'm still surprised none put the right attention on how many ways there are for an order to be illegal. I can see at least three different ways (with many variants) in which a move can be illegal:
1) It can't be performed due to a status/field condition clearly codified by Data rules (ex: use Agility while being Taunted, use Explosion when you don't have enough energy to do so, etc).
2) It can't be performed due to an arena feature (ex: using Rain Dance in an indoor arena, or Chill in a no Chill battle)
3) It goes against rules in a subjective/controversial way (ex: ordering an unlikely combo such as Shadow Ball + Hyper Beam, or ambigous situations which require Deck/Council intervention)
This is just a tentative draft, maybe we can find a more detailed / cohesive list of cases.
Anyway, my point is - not all these cases seem to deserve the same kind of treatment IMO, and the majority of proposals only take (3) into account... sometimes. I think we'd need to discuss more in depth the different "illegalities" we may find, and how to deal with each specifically.
EDIT: Also please, while I understand this is a heated discussion, please try and refrain from an excessive abuse of "quote + reply multiplied per twelve" posts. They are very difficult and annoying to read for people not directly involved in the debate, often not as constructive, and likely to turn the thread into a shitstorm which leads us nowhere.
zarator, Explosion without enough energy is legal; it just doesn't work and you pay the energy cost anyway. Similar to Sucker Punch when the opponent uses a non-damaging move.
Also, we've been talking about 1 and 2 all this time! 3 is the one that hasn't been talked about much, because unlikely combos like Tackle + Psychic are already covered with a suitable system.
I'll weigh in briefly mostly because the council and other members have covered most of the ground.
1. Re-orders should really be a last resort.
When the game was new, people who hadn't played before were very likely to trip up since so few people had knowledge of the gameplay. That isn't really the case anymore and enough people know what to do that the re-ordering is disruptive and incredibly time consuming for both refs and players.
2. Struggle as a substitute for illegal actions is canonically sound.
While I could fiddle around with Struggle to not make it quite as terrible, I'd rather matches go more smoothly and not have to be re-reffed/re-ordered.
I'm heavily leaning towards dogfish's proposal. Match flow is now a bigger problem then being able to learn the gameplay. I really don't think there's any abuse going on, it's not worth it to wait 10 days for the ref to get around to doing it, then have to redo it if they missed an illegal order.
@ zarator: Two moves that are to be combined that cannot be suitably combined is just codified as using the two moves separately, iirc.
Just going to briefly say that imo, idrc if we replace illegal orders with struggle or not, but I just want to say that illegal orders should still exist in Beginner Battles whatever way it goes, since new players who want to play beginner battles are not likely to be fully competent in terms of knowing the rules, so to have illegal orders in beginner battles will help them learn more, & we should not punish them with a struggle just because they did not realise that ruling "x" existed. In more serious matches, there is not really any excuse for two experienced players to not know the rules, but newer players definitely need leeway in some form — that something of which the "illegal orders = reorder" rules provide.
Can someone please link me to a battle where a players abused this? Where you can say, for sure, that it wasn't a mistake.
<snip>
If you are afraid of abuse, add a clause that says "if someone is caught maliciously abusing this rule, he/she will automatically lose the battle and may be warned given the circumstances" and keep your bloody eyes open.
If you're suggesting that it's difficult to determine for sure whether somebody is intentionally abusing illegal actions to gain an edge in battle, I don't see how your clause helps the matter in any way.
Anyway, I don't buy any arguments about punishing the player; there are no complaints about being "punished" when their orders are stopped cold by a move they missed on their opponent's Pokemon; when one of their substitutions are exploited mercilessly; or when they simply mistype an attack, such as "Magic Coat" when they mean "Mirror Coat." There's really no difference between those and illegal actions. I agree with allowing for reorders in Beginner Battles just because they're not as cutthroat and also finally give them some distinction among the slew of other battles, but I don't see a need for mollycoddling to carry over. Besides, Struggle actually allows you to come off better than "no action," unless you're really that starved for EN or have a pitiful Attack.
Having reorders also just plain sucks in (perhaps unlikely) cases such as the one Dogfish posted up above. I really don't want a nasty flowchart that referees have to go through to figure out what to do when one of their players makes an "illegal" action or a rule with four or five caveats that build off of each other.
At the same time, though, I like the current "one chance" system we have now with attacks such as Taunt and Torment where the first time your action would fail (if ordering first, I think) is just failed; it reflects in-game precedence by nullifying the action instead of going directly to Struggle, which I think is nice. I'm not sure if this can be incorporated with a more Struggle-oriented system, however, but I'll think more about it.
Okay, I believe the illegal orders thing really needs to be fixed, it's too easily abusable.
Here's what I think should guide the discussion: Doing illegal things, (orders or substitutions), should never help you. Illegal substitutions are a problem as well.
I'll weigh in briefly mostly because the council and other members have covered most of the ground.
1. Re-orders should really be a last resort.
When the game was new, people who hadn't played before were very likely to trip up since so few people had knowledge of the gameplay. That isn't really the case anymore and enough people know what to do that the re-ordering is disruptive and incredibly time consuming for both refs and players.
2. Struggle as a substitute for illegal actions is canonically sound.
While I could fiddle around with Struggle to not make it quite as terrible, I'd rather matches go more smoothly and not have to be re-reffed/re-ordered.
Forgive me for posting after skimming through the thread instead of digesting it word by word, but I can side with Deck on this. As an active referee, I've suffered quite a few mishaps where I forgot to check movepools, only to spot my mistakes 3 rounds after I reffed it. As painfully embarassing as it is to admit, what am I, as areferee, to do? Rewind it by 3 rounds is not the best of ideas. More often than not, I cut my pay by a couple of UC just to punish myself. But that is me. In any case, I do believe that it is the players' responsibility to point out illegalities. If your illegal actions are locked by the DQ period or the next player ordering seond after you, then you use Struggle. Full stop.
Or, if your opponent is nice, they could allow you to reorder, assuming of course, the referee agrees to it as well. In any case, if you're looking to exploit your opponent's mistakes, you won't just be looking at the surface of the orders - more often than not, you'd probably should look at the arena mechanics, speed ties, etc. etc. to fully exploit them. Illegal orders = Struggle and Illegal substitutions = Ignored are pretty okay by me. Besides, the world won't turn upside down if you lose due to an illegal order - just man up, learn from your mistakes, and move on, bud.
OK, discussion seems to be winding down so I'll whip up a tentative slate. However, this will not go to vote until an issue regarding the voting process is resolved.
[box]How should we handle illegal orders? Retain the current method
Use Dogfish44's method
Use Frosty's method
Use Pwnemon's method[/box]
Note: If you have any other ideas that you want to see slated, you'll have to write up a formal rule set.
Question for those who have proposed new rulesets: if I'm slower and order first with Toxic – Thunder Wave – Will-O-Wisp, then my opponent uses Taunt A1, do I still fail normally on A1 or does that immediately become Struggle?
I'm not a fan of it immediately becoming Struggle, so I'd like to make sure that you've accounted for that in your rulesets if you intend to do so.
Not really going to add much, but if it is okay, I might try & draft up what constitutes an illegal order. Do be aware this is a WIP.
[BOX]ILLEGAL ORDERS
DEFINITION
An illegal order is an action-string where under the current conditions of the battle at that point, is impossible to perform successfully for whatever reason other than:
Not having enough energy to use a certain move
Using two moves that cannot be combined for whatever reason
Using an action-string that can become legalised in some way (Eg. A Taunted Pokémon using Volt Switch A1 in a Switch=KO Match, then attempting to use a non-attacking move later in the round)
For an action-string to be considered an illegal order, the main action-string—excluding substitutions—is impossible to perform successfully. If a substitution is impossible to perform successfully for whatever reason, the substitution is then simply not taken into account when reffing occurs as long as the main action-string can be performed successfully.
TYPES OF ILLEGAL ORDERS
ILLEGAL MOVES
A Pokémon attempts to order a move that either:
Does not exist in its movepool, or
The Pokémon cannot learn at all
INCORRECT ACTION QUANTITY
A Pokémon uses an action-string that does not consist of:
Exactly three separate actions in Singles/Doubles matches, or other matches where three actions per round is enforced
Exactly two separate actions in Triples or greater matches, or other matches where two actions per round is enforced
INCORRECT POKÉMON QUANTITY
A player orders for anything other than all the Pokémon under his/her control & currently on the field, unless specified. This covers:
Ordering for a Pokémon that is not on the field, or not under the player's control
Failing to order for a Pokémon that is on the field, & is under the player's control
MOVE-SPECIFIC ORDERS (AFFECTED)
A Pokémon's action-string consists of at least one move that is guaranteed to fail due to the effects of a specific move. The Pokémon must be under the effects of said move at the start of the round for the action-string to be illegal. If the effect wears off part-way through the round, then the Pokémon may use the affected moves in the actions after that particular effect wears off. This includes:
Disable: This Pokémon tries to use a move that cannot be used due to Disable.
Imprison: This Pokémon tries to use a move that cannot be used due to Imprison.
Taunt: This Pokémon tries to use a move that cannot be used due to Taunt.
Torment: This Pokémon tries to use a move that cannot be used due to Torment.
<Other moves that need to be added>
MOVE-SPECIFIC ORDERS (USER)
A Pokémon's action-string consists of a move whose syntax is illegal. This includes:
Imprison: The user attempts to Imprison a move shared by neither foe.
Non-Global Multi-Target moves: The user fails to mention up to the arbitrary number of targets for a specific attack in a format where the number of Pokémon per side is greater than the number of possible targets. Moves that target all Pokémon on one side is exempt from this rule.
Single-Target moves: The user fails to mention a specific target for a Single-Target move. This is only relevant in matches when there is more than one possible target. Self-Targeting moves are exempt from this rule.
<Other things that need to be added blah blah blah>
<OTHER CATEGORIES GO HERE>
DEALING WITH ILLEGAL ORDERS
<Whatever method we use to deal with illegal orders goes here>[/BOX]
Basically, if we are going to deal with illegal orders, then would it not make sense if we actually defined what is an illegal order? I did try to make a brief definition of what an illegal order is, & then go into specifics, but that is still under construction. Any possible feedback? I know I am missing a bunch of stuff, but I do not have the time now... :|
To begin to fill in that chart, I think only move-specific orders should cause struggle, while the rest cause a re-order.
It seems also only fair that if a substitution is illegal for a reason not having to do with the format of subs, it also causes a re-order. I partially lost a match because I abused a sub in which one of the ordered moves was illegal for the above criteria, and it backfired completely. That shouldn't happen: illegal moves or substitutions should never help the side that uses them.
