Smogon's Philosophy on Competitive Pokemon (Simulator Mechanics)

[Jiggy]

All I really want on this front--and from any Smogon decision, for that matter--is consistency and clarity. Even if I don't agree with the end result, the reasoning behind a decision should never be invisible or vague; even the newest people looking to get into Pokemon who hear about a given rule and wonder why should be able to get an answer in literally no uncertain terms.

Strictly adhering to the game mechanics is unmistakably consistent and clear. It starts with a single first principle and never deviates, leaving no room for moving goalposts. I voted yes on it for that reason. If it's possible to use common sense (as some here would like) in a consistent and clear way that stands on a solid foundation, then I wouldn't see any problem with that. However, I'm not sure that is possible outside of the idea that everything should be put up to pure democracy.

I agree with the sentiment that either the game as it is takes precedence or the game that people think would be better takes precedence. If the former, then I want strict adherence to the game. If the latter, then I want strict adherence to the idea--which means that no mechanic should be exempt from being debated and potentially changed.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm not sure "sometimes they just suck" is a viable reason to change game mechanics. In fact, even though I voted no in this poll, I don't think I would want to see anyone changing game mechanics because they "suck." I'm hoping we will limit this to fixing any new and obvious glitches that may pop up in future games, and possibly the implementation of classic sleep clause (I am more opposed to the reasoning which is being used to try to "force" us to abandon classic sleep clause than I am to actually abandoning classic sleep clause; in reality it makes virtually no difference, and certainly not as much as a new glitch potentially might).

I thought it was clear by the rest of my post that "suck" meant "anti-competitive or otherwise detrimental to the game as a whole".

 

[Elevator Music]

I voted No on accident, so can someone please change it? -.-

That being said I really don't have a great opinion on the matter, I think its just easier to follow game mechanics most of the time.

 

[RBG]

Fixed the above.

Edit @ vvv: Tis ok. I wasn't trying to convince anyone to change their minds, just trying to clarify any misconceptions.

 

[shrang]

No, no, no. Assuming we are using Cartridge Mechanics, Giving the person who breaks sleep clause an auto-loss is not changing the mechanics, but rather, adding an alternate win condition, while forcing sleep moves to fail, when they would not usually, IS changing game mechanics. They are not comparable, and they are two completely different things. One which satisfies the purists, the which satisfies the people willing to make small changes to make the game better (or those who want to emulate the stadium games whenever they come out.)

Okay, I understand now, but still won't change my vote though o_0

 

[lilyhollow]

Jrrrrrrr, your posts show fundamental disagreement with what this site aims to do (which is to simulate competitive Pokemon battles). Even the "anti-simulation" members are essentially in favor of Smogon being treated as a simulation site, and do not consider Gamefreak's Pokemon a mere "starting point." The question to them (and to almost everyone else) is whether exceptions should be allowed, not whether we should allow for the community to go crazy three years from now and implement a hidden luck-based win condition or something. I don't think anyone finds that appealing, and it's just the idea of something "clearly unintentional/broken" like Acid Rain being accepted without question that bothers Syberia and other No-voters (and maybe even you if I happen to be reading too much into your "We don't know what the community will be like in 3 years, so taking their choices away now would be foolish" statement).

Anyway, if we only want to make room for "exceptions," then we should follow DougJustDoug's suggestion, which Aldaron already sort of implied when he said that "there are exceptions to every rule"-- make it a rule, and then if we ever need exceptions, we can make them. I personally don't think there will ever be a legitimate need for us to deviate from a strict simulation, but what I'm more concerned about is the damage that could be caused by an explicit "we are not a simulation" policy. I say "damage" not because I believe that "Pokemon except with a bunch of changes that make it better" is a bad thing in itself, but because I believe the community largely does not desire it (only voting "no" under the impression that an explicit "not a simulation" policy could never effect such a change, an impression I believe to be false).

 

[LonelyNess]

Why would you make the rule "always accurately simulate cartridge mechanics" and then make exceptions to the rule, when you can make the rule "don't necessarily have to simulate cartridge mechanics", and then simulate cartridge mechanics anyway except in very rare cases (such as implimenting "smogon sleep clause").

The latter involves no contradicting of Smogon rules while the former does... doing the former just leaves it open for pedantic douchebags to say "WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES WE SET" later on down the road. It's unnecessarily limiting.

 

[Iconic]

Without going into a long-winded explanation (and because I'm not very keen on arguing), I voted "no" for the reasons outlined by the people before me, particularly by locopoke and Mekkah. As competitive players, I feel we are responsible enough to be able to slightly tweak in-game mechanics in a way that improves the game. As locopoke stated, we've been doing it successfully for years, as seen in the case of Classic Sleep Clause. Voting "no" doesn't necessarily mean I'm opposed to things like the implementation of Acid Rain, but rather it leaves the door open to address these cases on an individual basis instead of ignoring them outright.

 

[TheFourthChaser]

The latter involves no contradicting of Smogon rules while the former does... doing the former just leaves it open for pedantic douchebags to say "WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES WE SET" later on down the road. It's unnecessarily limiting.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. I also don't believe an obvious glitch like Acid Rain(even though it doesn't exist in gen 5, just the best example I could think of) should ever be implemented even though it's "part of the game's mechanics".

 

[Umbreon Dan]

if we were playing a totally different game and using pokemon as only a "starting point", then there are several "common sense" changes we would have made. critical hits, for example, are clearly uncompetitive. why don't we just get rid of them?

because we actually are playing pokemon, and not our own custom game.

voted yes.

 

[Nas]

As competitive players, we should hold the right to tweak in-game mechanics in order to reach "the best" metagame possible. After all, weren't the introduction of tiers and clauses set to accomplish the same goal? I don't see the point of unnecessarily limiting ourselves to the implementation of game mechanics with no discussion at all, so I voted no.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Jrrrrrrr, your posts show fundamental disagreement with what this site aims to do (which is to simulate competitive Pokemon battles).

www.smogon.com/philosophy

Smogon, which is comprised of players who have battled competitively since the old days of Red and Blue, has a great deal of experience with this particular area. It has taken into account many rules—some of them subscribed to by Game Freak itself in its Battle Towers, as well as various rules that were designed in the Stadium series. The "OU metagame" is the result of a search for a balanced game, where player skill, teambuilding skill, and a certain amount of luck combine to execute victory. The "OU metagame" is in no ways perfect, but it should be pointed out that 99% of multiplayer games are often plagued by imbalance and the resulting "tiers", and it is fortunate that Pokémon's detailed depth, combined with the intelligent minds of its players, working to prevent various abuses, is capable of producing a diverse and enjoyable arena.

Smogon's stated purpose is to search for a balanced metagame capable of producing the most competition and enjoyment for the players. Nothing that has ever been officially posted on Smogon suggests that we are looking to "simulate competitive Pokemon battles". In fact, it says just the opposite: that we're trying to make the battles better with our own regulations. You're confusing Smogon with PL.

 

[lilyhollow]

www.smogon.com/philosophy

Smogon's stated purpose is to search for a balanced metagame capable of producing the most competition and enjoyment for the players. Nothing that has ever been officially posted on Smogon suggests that we are looking to "simulate competitive Pokemon battles". In fact, it says just the opposite: that we're trying to make the battles better with our own regulations. You're confusing Smogon with PL.

I'm not confusing anything with anything. Smogon is and has always been "Pokemon on the internet." That excerpt does not support your position at all, and has oddly been used to erroneously justify other arguments against me in the recent past; I am very familiar with it

That being said, the Smogon Philosophy is very much outdated and I wouldn't be concerned about it even if it did have something relevant to say about this argument (it doesn't).

 

[mtr]

Voted no.

If we have the chance to remove gamebreaking glitches like Acid Rain, we have no reason not to. And yeah, LonelyNess is right in that the former path, the philosophy we followed until now, has enabled the philosophy of "we must completely simulate the cartridge mechanics, even the random crap like Acid Rain".

Anyways, my view is that Nintendo made the Pokemon, but we make the game. We're not going to do things like give Roost to Giratina, but it IS up to us to make clauses and Pokemon bans.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm not confusing anything with anything. Smogon is and has always been "Pokemon on the internet." That excerpt does not support your position at all, and has oddly been used to erroneously justify other arguments against me in the recent past; I am very familiar with it

That being said, the Smogon Philosophy is very much outdated and I wouldn't be concerned about it even if it did have something relevant to say about this argument (it doesn't).

just...wow. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. I will never be able to understand how you can look at a direct rebuttal of what you said and ignore it so thoroughly. Even if the philosophy is outdated, how does that make it irrelevant when I just showed you exactly what I was talking about - that Smogon doesn't simulate pokemon, we create a competitive metagame with our own rules. That is literally an official Smogon document telling you that you are wrong. You're confusing Cathy's mindset as a simulator programmer with Smogon's mindset as a competitive community. I don't know how I can explain this any clearer. You are free to your own opinions, you are not free to your own facts.

 

[lati0s]

There is a difference between creating a metagame with tiers and clauses and changing the fundamentals of how the game is played.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There is a difference between creating a metagame with tiers and clauses and changing the fundamentals of how the game is played.

And Smogon's philosophy doesn't care about either when we make our competitive metagame.

 

[lilyhollow]

just...wow. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. I will never be able to understand how you can look at a direct rebuttal of what you said and ignore it so thoroughly. Even if the philosophy is outdated, how does that make it irrelevant when I just showed you exactly what I was talking about - that Smogon doesn't simulate pokemon, we create a competitive metagame with our own rules. That is literally an official Smogon document telling you that you are wrong. You're confusing Cathy's mindset as a simulator programmer with Smogon's mindset as a competitive community. I don't know how I can explain this any clearer. You are free to your own opinions, you are not free to your own facts.

The essay says that Smogon searches for "a balanced metagame." Not "the most balanced metagame," not "a balanced metagame at the expense of it being a simulated metagame," but "a balanced metagame." Sorry if it seemed like I was just mindlessly dismissing you. That's sort of exactly what I did, but it's because the essay speaks for itself and plainly does not support your argument in any way at all.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

The essay says that Smogon searches for "a balanced metagame." Not "the most balanced metagame," not "a balanced metagame at the expense of it being a simulated metagame," but "a balanced metagame." Sorry if it seemed like I was just mindlessly dismissing you. That's sort of exactly what I did, but it's because the essay speaks for itself and plainly does not support your argument in any way at all.

So why should we not look for "the most balanced metagame"? I'm trying really hard to not start a flame war here, I just don't get your reasoning at all. Are you saying we shouldn't strive for perfection when we're talking about a game we play for fun when we have the means to do so? And I gave you an entire excerpt that supports me.

 

[lilyhollow]

We shouldn't strive for the most balanced metagame because we (referring to the community at large) want to be a competitive Pokemon community. Now if you want to go conduct a poll and prove to me that the majority of the community doesn't actually care what game they're playing so long as it's "the most balanced," you can do that. Until then, I'm going to continue believing that this community wants to play Pokemon, or something that is very close to it.

I'm not even going to talk about the excerpt anymore unless you can actually explain how any of it serves as some sort of meaningful support of your argument. You are just sort of posting things and commanding me to agree that they support you.

 

[Firestorm]

Smogon is a website that houses competitive Pokemon players.
PokeLab, Pokemon Online, and products before them are simulators that simulate Pokemon battles.

The idea of changing game mechanics actually isn't mentioned in our philosophy. It's something we need to set now. The way we've shaped the metagame in the past has been through restricting usage (only allowing one Pokemon to be let put to sleep, banning Pokemon and moves outright). Everything we've ever done has been replicable in the game.

 

[panamaxis]

Lonelyness summed up my thoughts well. I'd rather we have the option to be somewhat flexible for competitive purposes etc. etc. later down the track then not have this option.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm not even going to talk about the excerpt anymore unless you can actually explain how any of it serves as some sort of meaningful support of your argument. You are just sort of posting things and commanding me to agree that they support you.

We acknowledge that the game is flawed with imbalances, so we strive as a community to make our experience better (which is what a strict adherence policy prevents us from doing). That's what was in the excerpt. Better means both more competitive and more enjoyable. I honestly don't know how much more clear this can get.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

I think what you're both missing is that at this point, the philosophy of Smogon doesn't actually support EITHER of your claims. It says that we "try to make it better", but it doesn't specifically state how we go about doing that, which is what the purpose of this thread is.

 

[cim]

If the Smogon Philosophy actually meant "modify Pokemon to make the most balanced metagame", then can someone please tell me why that doesn't mean we should modify major mechanics (critical hits), stats, movepools, and almost everything else about the game? Don't just say "it's not the same thing", because what constitutes the "same thing" is incredibly arbitrary and if we have to modify the game to make the most balanced metagame per our philosophy, then why would we arbitrarily stop?

I still think that modifying Pokemon is a stupid idea, and that most of the people who voted "no" didn't actually mind PL's sleep clause...