I don't know how popular this ideea will be but I actually support simulating PBR mechanics. The reveals your team problem could be solved by "covering up the screen" in the same way that shoddy battle lets you take back moves after you have punched them in by simulating a system where you write them down first. The main reason I like this solution is that IMO the weather glitch makes a perfection simulation of platinum/HGSS very undesirable, sleep clause is just a bonus.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Removing/Fixing outdated clauses
- Thread starter RBG
- Start date
- Status
Freeze clause was first introduced to mainstream competitive battling via NetBattle. It is not a holdover from the RBY days. On GSBot and RSBot there was no such thing that I remember. A lot of people thought the Freeze clause option on NetBattle was stupid, but of course it eventually got ingrained in the community. It should be removed.
I'm almost positive its only platinum/HGSS, PBR uses a totally different battle engine
I think we can agree that Freeze clause has to go. That is the result of this thread.
As far as dealing with sleep clause, I think every argument has been presented... each with what I think are valid points. For that reason, both clauses should be programmed into the simulator (which I believe Colin is planning on anyway). Tournament hosts can choose either version at their own discretion as can individual players for non-ladder battles.
The ladder is what presents the problem. One random idea that popped into my head that I haven't really thought about: What do you all think about having a users set a preference for the type of sleep clause they want to play with on the ladder and then match them against those with similar preferences?
Option A: Classic Clause
Option B: Revised Clause
Option C: Either Clause
For Option C, players can be matched with anyone. If matched against someone with a defined preference, then the game will be played under that ruleset. If they play against another Option C player, then the game will be governed by a predetermined default or a clause randomly selected.
I don't object to the variability of ruleset on a single ladder because the difference is negligible in almost all cases.
Again, I haven't really thought this through, so I'd appreciate comments.
As far as dealing with sleep clause, I think every argument has been presented... each with what I think are valid points. For that reason, both clauses should be programmed into the simulator (which I believe Colin is planning on anyway). Tournament hosts can choose either version at their own discretion as can individual players for non-ladder battles.
The ladder is what presents the problem. One random idea that popped into my head that I haven't really thought about: What do you all think about having a users set a preference for the type of sleep clause they want to play with on the ladder and then match them against those with similar preferences?
Option A: Classic Clause
Option B: Revised Clause
Option C: Either Clause
For Option C, players can be matched with anyone. If matched against someone with a defined preference, then the game will be played under that ruleset. If they play against another Option C player, then the game will be governed by a predetermined default or a clause randomly selected.
I don't object to the variability of ruleset on a single ladder because the difference is negligible in almost all cases.
Again, I haven't really thought this through, so I'd appreciate comments.
I don't like that it sort of alters the player pool. I mean let's say I'm really set on option B. Now I don't have to worry about playing IPL anymore unless one of us "caves?" It seems like a lot of people will just be using Option C because it's more universal and "they don't really care" about the practical changes to the gameplay, but if that's the case, it sort of supports just going with the "Revised Clause."
I'm not sure how I missed it before... but I didn't realize that the classic clause was in effect for PBR. This makes me dismiss the notion that the revised clause is any more "correct" that the classic clause that has been operating for many, many years now.
The rub comes in because alternate forms are not included in PBR... so people are framing this as an "either/or" question: "Do we want Rotom-A and other alternate forms or do we want classic clause?"
People have already called including both indefensible and untenable... but I disagree. Each are part of competitive pokemon and that is exactly what we are trying to simulate. The fact that the alternate forms and classic clause diverge in which platforms they appear in does not seem to be an unbridgeable chasm that forces our hand into choosing one or the other.
In fact, it seems to me that it would be most responsible to include both rather than to permanently preclude a part of the competitive game that has been endorsed by its creators.
The rub comes in because alternate forms are not included in PBR... so people are framing this as an "either/or" question: "Do we want Rotom-A and other alternate forms or do we want classic clause?"
People have already called including both indefensible and untenable... but I disagree. Each are part of competitive pokemon and that is exactly what we are trying to simulate. The fact that the alternate forms and classic clause diverge in which platforms they appear in does not seem to be an unbridgeable chasm that forces our hand into choosing one or the other.
In fact, it seems to me that it would be most responsible to include both rather than to permanently preclude a part of the competitive game that has been endorsed by its creators.
The way I see it, we need to choose te choice that keeps the most viable Pokemon. In my view this makes PBR unviable as it removes 3 (or 7) viable pokemon that have no problems with them. Pre-Platinum, I would have supported using "pbr" sleep clause, since we would not have lost any Pokemon. And if another stadium game comes out with all the new formes and sleep clause, then I would have no problem using Stadium Sleep Clause provided we followed all the mechanics in it.
The point being, we should decide which version of the game we want to emulate, be it DP, PBR, Plat, or HG/SS, and have all decisions based on what happens within those games.
The point being, we should decide which version of the game we want to emulate, be it DP, PBR, Plat, or HG/SS, and have all decisions based on what happens within those games.
hey guys what's up in this policy review. Sorry if I'm dredging up a nearly two-week-old topic now.
So yeah, to discuss the more pertinent issue, I just have to say I agree with Aeolus. (i.e. I'd rather include the better aspects of both battling mediums.) There's no reason to assume implementing "Classic" Sleep Clause, in an otherwise cart-based ruleset, sets any sort of precedent at all for altering game mechanics willy-nilly. It's existed for ten years and four generations... and there's not a single "radical alteration" we've made since setting this supposed "dangerous precendent." Bogus argument, stop using it. At worst, it's a mash-up of minor rules differences that lies between Link and Stadium-style battles anyway, since the rule is endorsed by Nintendo/GF themselves. It's not like we just made it up. Or maybe we did, but Nintendo quickly supported the cause with its implemention in PS1 and all future installments. :P
Freeze Clause started with Pokémon Stadium (1). That said, its implementation in Stadium's successors is just a holdover from when Freeze was basically an OHKO (RBY). Freeze is only slightly better than Sleep these days but there's no reason to clause it like we do Sleep, as there's no way to cause it at-will. That said, it's also not really hurting anything and endorsed by Nintendo. And though this is not a valid argument, Freeze Clause so rarely comes into play that nobody really cares one way or the other.
So yeah, to discuss the more pertinent issue, I just have to say I agree with Aeolus. (i.e. I'd rather include the better aspects of both battling mediums.) There's no reason to assume implementing "Classic" Sleep Clause, in an otherwise cart-based ruleset, sets any sort of precedent at all for altering game mechanics willy-nilly. It's existed for ten years and four generations... and there's not a single "radical alteration" we've made since setting this supposed "dangerous precendent." Bogus argument, stop using it. At worst, it's a mash-up of minor rules differences that lies between Link and Stadium-style battles anyway, since the rule is endorsed by Nintendo/GF themselves. It's not like we just made it up. Or maybe we did, but Nintendo quickly supported the cause with its implemention in PS1 and all future installments. :P
- Status