PS Sleep Clause [Showdown]

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#26
Also, I think you underestimate the negative effect of a misclick on high level play- very rarely does a misclick not have an extreme adverse effect on the player. The fact that a misclick with any implementation of Sleep Clause leads to instant forfeiture rather than a slow death due to losing an important Pokemon is pretty much just a technicality.
That "high level play" qualification is what worries me... I feel it necessary to point out that Pokemon is played at multiple levels, and I don't feel like being newbie-unfriendly is particularly desirable.

The reason Chess is more timeless than Monopoly, the reason StarCraft is more timeless than Total Annihilation (or their spiritual successors, StarCraft 2 and Supreme Commander respectively) is because of their newbie-friendliness, by way of their lack of hidden "gotchas" like Sleep Clause #4 would be.


On top of that the potential for misclicks that instantly end the game does exist on the cartridge
The only part of my post that contained the word 'misclick' was the sentence "I'm not referring to misclicks".

Finally, if the fear is that great, you can implement a "are you sure" where the person has to confirm their move if it has the potential to break Sleep Clause.
If it comes to that, I will definitely implement such a change.

But I feel like requiring such an invasive UI change is a massive warning sign that we're doing it the wrong way.

By explicitly defining it as a rule rather than a "win/lose condition" and noting that any real adverse side effects that may exist (potential for misclicks, need for risk-based prediction) are already inherent in the game and punished significantly regardless of the implementation of Sleep Clause, the "disadvantages" of option #4 are practically nonexistant.
This is semantics.

The point is that it's not you deciding whether or not you break the "rule", it's the RNG. I feel that at that point, it shouldn't be called a "rule" and should be called a game mechanic, but even if you think it should be called a rule, the fact remains:

It's not you deciding whether or not you break the "rule", it's the RNG.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#27
Also, I rephrased Sleep Clause #2 yet again:

A move that can cause sleep is a move that, if used against a perfectly healthy pokemon with no relevant items or abilities, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy.​

It's the exact same rule as before, but phrasing this way eliminates the awkward "assuming no knowledge" phrasing.
 

david stone

Fast-moving, smart, sexy and alarming.
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#28
I support version 1 of the clause. It is the most basic and straightforward clause. I think it's the player's responsibility to not use strategies where they can lose instantly.

You say that it's not fair that a Choice Breloom could instantly lose if they Spore a Wobbuffet / Chandelure / Dugtrio, but maybe that's a sign that the player shouldn't use Choice Breloom or shouldn't just blindly Spore the foe.

You say that clause version 1 is the only form of the clause that can add a situation in which a player loses and cannot recover, but that's kind of a silly analogy. There are many situations I've been in for any generation where I've made a mistake and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, such as using Hidden Power Flying against Suicune instead of Dragon Dance, even though I knew they were using Rest, which happened to me in the finals of a Gen 3 tour, causing me to lose, or not switching from Hippowdon to Blissey when faced with a Dragonite to let Dragonite's Special Attack fall from Draco Meteor, or any other situation like that. I've also been on the other side. I'd assume that people who find clause 1 unacceptable are also in favor of banning Mean Look + set-up move? There have been many games I've been in where I trap the opponent with Mean Look and either set up or Baton Pass to a set-up Pokemon. One of my most successful Gen 3 teams was Mean Look Umbreon, Dugtrio, and 4 set-up sweepers in DD Salamence, DD Tyranitar, Calm Mind Raikou, and one other Pokemon that switched around a lot (usually Calm Mind Jirachi). If you had a Pokemon that couldn't kill Umbreon before it can use Mean Look and Baton Pass (and that I didn't instantly trap and kill with Dugtrio), it's very likely that at least one of my Pokemon can freely set up against you and then you'll probably lose the game to a +6 sweeper.

Your baseball analogy is flawed. If it's bottom of the ninth, the bases are loaded, and the team up to bat is down by 3, then the pitcher making a mistake can instantly lose the game, but that's not even the kind of thing we're talking about with using a sleep move when you shouldn't. The kind of mistake that's more closely related to using Spore twice is more like the pitcher throwing the ball at the umpire while the rest of the team moons them.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#29
I support version 1 of the clause. It is the most basic and straightforward clause. I think it's the player's responsibility to not use strategies where they can lose instantly.
I think it's also the ruleset's responsibility not to artificially introduce ways to lose instantly that didn't exist before.

You say that it's not fair that a Choice Breloom could instantly lose if they Spore a Wobbuffet / Chandelure / Dugtrio, but maybe that's a sign that the player shouldn't use Choice Breloom or shouldn't just blindly Spore the foe.
Technically, I didn't say that. In fact, that's beside the point I'm making.

I'm going to quote Characteristics of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame again:

Adherence [...] We are not making a new game, we are metagaming the existing game of Pokemon.

It doesn't matter that it's fair that Choice Breloom could instantly lose. It matters that in Pokemon, instant losses aren't a thing.

You say that clause version 1 is the only form of the clause that can add a situation in which a player loses and cannot recover, but that's kind of a silly analogy. There are many situations I've been in for any generation where I've made a mistake and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, such as [...].
No, there have been many situations in which the combination of "you made a mistake" and "your opponent was a good enough player to capitalize upon your mistake and win the game" led to your defeat.

Taking out the second requirement is undesirable, and violates the "Skill" Characteristic of a Desirable Pokemon Metagame.

I've also been on the other side. I'd assume that people who find clause 1 unacceptable are also in favor of banning Mean Look + set-up move? There have been many games I've been in where I trap the opponent with Mean Look and either set up or Baton Pass to a set-up Pokemon.
This is entirely missing the point.

There is a difference between a strategy that is designed to be viable in Pokemon, and a strategy that wasn't viable but was artificially made viable by Sleep Clause.

In fact, this difference constitutes the entire point of my objection to Cathy's Sleep Clause and a significant proportion of my previous posts, and I find it at least a bit puzzling that you did not understand this point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did read my posts: Were they unclear?

Your baseball analogy is flawed. If it's bottom of the ninth, the bases are loaded, and the team up to bat is down by 3, then the pitcher making a mistake can instantly lose the game
This also completely misses the point. Of course it's possible to lose a game. No one would ever say otherwise.

My point is that, when you're not down to your last pokemon (or, in the baseball analogy, when it's not the ninth inning), it shouldn't be possible for a viable strategy to risk an instant loss.

The kind of mistake that's more closely related to using Spore twice is more like the pitcher throwing the ball at the umpire while the rest of the team moons them.
Err, I think you're missing the point of an analogy, which is to draw a comparison between two situations.

Using Spore twice in Cathy's Sleep Clause something that's risky but can pay off. Throwing the ball at the umpire while the rest of the team moons them is analogous to forfeiting - that's possible in Pokemon as well. The point is that viable strategies should not risk an instant loss.

In conclusion, the vast majority of your post appears to be a straw man fallacy, and you should be better than that. :|
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#30
I think aesoft answered SDS very well, and that even aesoft's initial disadvantages / advantages was fairly generous to the supporters of #4, I would argue that the main stated disadvantage of #2
- Disallows certain "risky" strategies that have a possibility of not resulting in two sleeping opponent pokemon, even if the probability is very high.
or, rephrased:
- Prevents players from being able to chance an instant artificial loss based almost always on factors outside their knowledge and control.
Is actually it's greatest advantage. And that the other disadvantage (Is not used in standard cartridge WiFi play.) is solvable, it is not entirely unreasonable to extend the simulator version of the sleep clause to wifi players, even if the implementation would have to be slightly different (loss due to selecting illegal moves, not the assistance of a simulator preventing loss inducing moves). This would of course be up to the leaders of wifi sections of site.

And for obi, I understand the want for a much more simple rule, but the idea that it's simply the player's responsibility to play with whatever we give them is neglectful when we can create a more adherent and consistent system. The other versions of the rule, though more complex programatically, are vastly more easy to play with and less intrusive (especially #2, since you can't lose because extra win conditions due to it). I don't think most players want to worry about the risk of instantly losing because of using a choiced sleep move, and think that allowing such an easily forcible outright win condition would be needlessly modifying base rules of Pokémon (your aim is to kill all the foes 'mons, not to trick them into putting two of your Pokémon to sleep), despite not technically breaking mechanics.
 

Lamppost

I put the milk in first
is a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#31
what's the problem with keeping the sleep clause as is? IMO it works pretty well...I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken here.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#33
The current sleep clause is impossible in 5th gen games, Sleep moves don't just fail when you've already slept something. This goes against the adherence characteristic which is a bad idea unless there is very good reason for it. Phil's statement, and so official policy, states that we should not intentionally violate game mechanics.
 

Firestorm

I did my best, I have no regrets!
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#34
what's the problem with keeping the sleep clause as is? IMO it works pretty well...I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken here.
This is for aeo's upcoming simulator. He would like to have it simulate the battles in the cartridges rather than make up restrictions that cannot be replicated.
 
#35
I think that the point needs to be made that this isn't so much about what should happen "philosophically", but rather, it's about something that aesoft and others are interested in undertaking and discussing, which I highly doubt will even affect the vast majority of games. aesoft is not going to be convinced by a sentiment that Sleep Clause is fine the way it is, because that's not an actual advantage over whatever Sleep Clause PS ends up having. It's pretty ironic considering the "armchair quarterback" comments I see sometimes from detractors...

And now back to the show...

Looking at the wording of #2, I wonder if you've considered having the engine silently play out the results of all sleep-move-opponent-move pairs to figure out the legality of the use of a sleep move. I was thinking of something along the lines of:

"An intentional sleep move may not be freely chosen if [quantifier] opponent option, the end-of-turn result satisfies Modified Cathy."

However, I see "significant" (with respect to this topic) flaws in both "for some" and "for every". "For every" results in a potentially very weak clause (see: Breloom Spore vs sleeping [n > 0 turns left] Salamence), while "for some" would disallow situations such as Breloom using Spore on sleeping [0 turns left] Salamence, on the grounds that the Salamence may switch out for whatever reason, and triggering "for some" would become dependent on the opponent's possible decisions. Switching out actually really messes with this...

This is why I believe that the definition of Sleep Clause should mention the opponent deciding to switch in (or leave in) an awake Pokémon. I also believe that choice of the clause should otherwise be irrelevant to the opponent's options. Something like this could be used:

"An intentional sleep move may not be freely chosen if, for every opponent action resulting in an awake active Pokémon, the end-of-turn result satisfies Modified Cathy."

Notice that this actually allows Breloom to aim Spore at a 0-turn sleeping Salamence, while disallowing it if there are n > 0 turns of sleep left. Whether or not this is actually desired, it seems (to me) more natural and gets to the whole point of Sleep Clause.

The only major problem left (or maybe more will be brought up) is whether to distinguish knowledge of e.g. Lum/Chesto Berry from knowledge of e.g. Natural Cure, and how to do it. While items and abilities are nearly equivalent mechanically (though items are "remembered" on switch-out), treating them the same here could have major consequences. If we assume that Blissey has Natural Cure, and conclude that we "should" also assume that other Pokémon have Lum Berry, this would either disallow using Spore on a sleeping Blissey or render Sleep Clause rather ineffective. The biggest difference that I can see is that Natural Cure is restricted to a few Pokémon, while Lum Berry is not.

The proposed clause now becomes:


"An intentional sleep move may not be freely chosen if, for every opponent action resulting in an awake active Pokémon, it is assumed that the end-of-turn result satisfies Modified Cathy."

with assumption

"It is assumed that a Pokémon has Natural Cure if it can have it."

or, speaking generally for the sake of future generations,

"If usage of an item or ability is restricted to a small minority of Pokémon, then said Pokémon are assumed to be using said item or ability."

comment rate subscribe
 

Nails

Nuke the Weebs
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
#36
I'd like to point out an issue with the wording of options 1, 3, and 4: the use of the phrase "at the end of the turn". This offers a loophole to abuse if the pokemon is slept and koed before the turn ends. For example, in a matchup of an 8% life orb darkrai, a 3% ho-oh, and a 5% sleeping dialga, the darkrai user can use dark void to put the ho-oh to sleep and avoid breaking sleep clause because the pokemon was not asleep when the turn ended; it had fainted due to bad dreams. A more common situation can be found in doubles; sleep one foe on turn 1, sleep the other on turn 2 and then ko one of them before the turn ends (assuming our rules apply to doubles, if not then disregard the second example).

To get around this, simply remove the "at the end of the turn" requirement.

As for which clause we should use, I support classic sleep clause. Of the clauses listed in the OP

  • 1 is easily abusable (wobbuffet + scarf sleep).
  • 2 has the aforementioned issue with natural cure or predicting a pokemon waking up. It also goes against wifi mechanics by restricting usable moves, which not only defeats the purpose of redefining sleep clause but has a potentially large competitive impact too. If I switch my starmie into your sporing breloom, I can then switch dragonite in for free while you are unable to spore it and set up a substitute without having to sacrifice a pokemon to sleep.
  • 3 has the issue snunch mentioned with a resting pokemon + sleep move, and is otherwise no different from 4.
So, discouting classic sleep clause, I support a modified version of #4: "You lose if two of your opponent's pokemon are asleep because of a move you used but were not forced into."
Aesoft said:
Adherence [...] We are not making a new game, we are metagaming the existing game of Pokemon.

It doesn't matter that it's fair that Choice Breloom could instantly lose. It matters that in Pokemon, instant losses aren't a thing.
How do you enforce sleep clause if you don't give the other player a win? Anything short of that cannot apply to every battle, or even most battles. "Spam the sleep move until they wake up" doesn't work because of leftovers/sandstorm/poison heal. Sacrificing the sleep inducer A. is not feasable on wifi and B. can be abused (get a free switch in for your sweeper, for example). Switch around until they wake up hasn't been an option since gen 1, due to variable sleep length and the fact that pokemon use a move the turn they wake up, even disregarding leftovers recovery and entry hazard damage. No matter what you do, there is no way to accurately implement sleep clause in cartridge play; giving a win to the other player is the only way to fairly and consistently punish someone for breaking sleep clause.

I support classic sleep clause because it's less intrusive than adding in an alternate win condition or disallowing the use of certain moves in certain situations, and doesn't restrict any of the competitive options discussed in this thread. For what it's worth it's also the precedent, though I don't think that's an important issue to you.
 
#37
Technically Bad Dreams is an end of turn effect. You could just make Sleep Clause come into effect before stuff like Leech Seed, Bad Dreams, Sandstorm, etc. The only reason the "end of turn" qualifier is important is in case of something like intentionally putting something with Lum Berry to sleep in order to break the berry.

Also, as I said before, couching it in terms of a mechanic is the wrong way to go about it. It's a rule, and if you break the rule, you are disqualified and have to forfeit. On WiFi, that has to be done voluntarily, but on a simulator, all it does is automate the forfeit that is required by the rules. Calling it an "instant loss" isn't the way to go.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#38
aesoft is not going to be convinced by a sentiment that Sleep Clause is fine the way it is, because that's not an actual advantage over whatever Sleep Clause PS ends up having. It's pretty ironic considering the "armchair quarterback" comments I see sometimes from detractors...
I have no idea what this is trying to say, but the reason Classic Sleep Clause is not an option is because it cannot be implemented on WiFi.

Looking at the wording of #2, I wonder if you've considered having the engine silently play out the results of all sleep-move-opponent-move pairs to figure out the legality of the use of a sleep move.
That was considered, and deemed way, way too complicated. The current wording makes it relatively simple to determine whether or not a move is banned.

This is why I believe that the definition of Sleep Clause should mention the opponent deciding to switch in (or leave in) an awake Pokémon.
Err, the wording is: "A move that can cause sleep is a move that, if used against a perfectly healthy pokemon with no relevant items or abilities, has any possibility of causing a loss under Modified Cathy."

In other words, a move that can cause sleep is one of: Spore, Dark Void, Lovely Kiss, Sleep Powder, Hypnosis, Sing, GrassWhistle, Relic Song, Metronome, Me First, Copycat.

This includes Assist if any of the moves in any of your movesets is one of the above moves.

This includes Sleep Talk if one of the moves in the user's moveset is one of the above moves.

I'd like to point out an issue with the wording of options 1, 3, and 4: the use of the phrase "at the end of the turn". This offers a loophole to abuse if the pokemon is slept and koed before the turn ends. For example, in a matchup of an 8% life orb darkrai, a 3% ho-oh, and a 5% sleeping dialga, the darkrai user can use dark void to put the ho-oh to sleep and avoid breaking sleep clause because the pokemon was not asleep when the turn ended; it had fainted due to bad dreams. A more common situation can be found in doubles; sleep one foe on turn 1, sleep the other on turn 2 and then ko one of them before the turn ends (assuming our rules apply to doubles, if not then disregard the second example).

To get around this, simply remove the "at the end of the turn" requirement.
You have demonstrated that the "at the end of the turn" requirement is consequential. You have not demonstrated why these consequences are undesirable, or why the requirement should be removed.

The "at the end of the turn" requirement was implemented by Cathy. It allows things like using a sleep move to get rid of a Berry. I see no reason to remove it.

And no, SDS, I'd prefer if it were kept to "at the end of the turn", and not "at the beginning of the residual phase".

2 has the aforementioned issue with natural cure or predicting a pokemon waking up. It also goes against wifi mechanics by restricting usable moves, which not only defeats the purpose of redefining sleep clause but has a potentially large competitive impact too. If I switch my starmie into your sporing breloom, I can then switch dragonite in for free while you are unable to spore it and set up a substitute without having to sacrifice a pokemon to sleep.
Yes, of course Sleep Clause has a competitive impact; the question is which one's competitive impact is least negative.

How do you enforce sleep clause if you don't give the other player a win?
I have no problem with a decision to violate a rule causing an instant win. That's what #2 would be.

I have a problem with the combination of a decision to possibly violate a rule, and the RNG, causing an instant win.

I support classic sleep clause because it's less intrusive than adding in an alternate win condition or disallowing the use of certain moves in certain situations, and doesn't restrict any of the competitive options discussed in this thread. For what it's worth it's also the precedent, though I don't think that's an important issue to you.
Classic Sleep Clause can't be used in cartridge play, so it's immediately rejected.
 
#39
2. Modified eric the espeon's Sleep Clause: If your opponent has a pokemon put to sleep by one of your moves, you lose if you use a move that can cause sleep, unless you are forced into it. In a simulator, such a move would be grayed out, since clicking it would be equivalent to clicking the Forfeit button.
This isn't an issue at the moment, but there is a rather large complication with this implementation and Relic Song when Melotta gets released. Relic Song can cause sleep, but unlike pretty much every other sleep move in the game sleep isn't the main objective; it's to change Melotta's forme. If this is implemented to the letter of the law, then Melotta loses the ability to change formes when a pokemon is already asleep. To further compound the problem, every time Melotta changes formes she has a 20% chance to put the opponent to sleep, and thus lose access to changing formes for the rest of the game.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#40
This isn't an issue at the moment, but there is a rather large complication with this implementation and Relic Song when Melotta gets released. Relic Song can cause sleep, but unlike pretty much every other sleep move in the game sleep isn't the main objective; it's to change Melotta's forme. If this is implemented to the letter of the law, then Melotta loses the ability to change formes when a pokemon is already asleep. To further compound the problem, every time Melotta changes formes she has a 20% chance to put the opponent to sleep, and thus lose access to changing formes for the rest of the game.
Yes, this is a problem with every Sleep Clause: With Cathy's Sleep Clause, Meloetta can't change forme without risking an instant loss, which I feel is nearly as bad.
 

FlareBlitz

Relaxed nature. Loves to eat.
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
#41
Yes, this is a problem with every Sleep Clause: With Cathy's Sleep Clause, Meloetta can't change forme without risking an instant loss, which I feel is nearly as bad.
Would it be possible to alleviate that issue by merely making Sleep Clause only applicable to moves whose sole purpose is to cause sleep? It wouldn't really affect Assist/Copycat/Metronome because those moves still "choose" moves whose sole purpose is to cause sleep.
 

Zarel

Not a Yuyuko fan
is a member of the Site Staffis a Battle Server Administratoris a Programmeris a Pokemon Researcheris an Administrator
Creator of PS
#42
Since it appears that there's not enough support for eric the espeon's Sleep Clause, and I really don't like the idea of a Sleep Clause in which risking ending the match early is competitively viable, I'm going to ask:

What do people think about having Classic Sleep Clause?
 
#44
I'm against it, mainly because I've never been a fan of simulators and Wi-Fi games having different mechanics, and while implementing a forced forfeit is a rule rather than a mechanic, implementing "second sleep fails" is most definitely a Wi-Fi incompatible mechanics change.