Expansion to the endless battle clause

[ThirdStrongestMole]

Earlier today in ou room someone linked some battle where he was trolling low ladder using this set

Blissey (F) @ Leppa Berry
Ability: Natural Cure
EVs: 252 HP / 252 Def / 4 SpD
Bold Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Block
- Charm
- Rest
- Recycle

Although it was hilarious to watch it also forces an endless battle so I think it should be banned if the clause is to be kept consistent. It is more situational than other methods to force endless battles because it only works if it blocks something such as ferrothorn or celesteela that commonly runs leech seed, but it doesn't make those situations any less possible. Since blissey has such a high hp stat the amount that is gained back from leech seed negates the amount that is lost from struggle, so it's the exact same concept as using heal pulse to heal them up. While it is true that, unlike the heal pulse sets, this set could technically have some competitive use by pp stalling rather than just serving as a strategy meant to troll, it is still extremely niche and I think we can all agree that we have never seen any blisseys or chanseys on serious teams that have sets even somewhat resembling this one.

Edit: Here is a game that I just did to showcase the way in which it causes an endless battle. The struggling starts at turn 97. https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8ou-1232224294-lhylwslnq8dyc4bx5urxpq41l8qqbxvpw

 

[DaWoblefet]

There's nothing about this set that can generate an endless battle. It's just a set that PP stalls the opponent. In order for it to be endless, there would need to be some component that outheals Struggle damage, which this set doesn't have. Similar sets have existed in Ubers with Gothitelle to PP stall defensive Arceus formes, or with Block + Spite Pykumuku on stall teams in OU to trap and stall things like opposing Toxapex.

 

[ThirdStrongestMole]

There's nothing about this set that can generate an endless battle. It's just a set that PP stalls the opponent. In order for it to be endless, there would need to be some component that outheals Struggle damage, which this set doesn't have. Similar sets have existed in Ubers with Gothitelle to PP stall defensive Arceus formes, or with Block + Spite Pykumuku on stall teams in OU to trap and stall things like opposing Toxapex.

Leech seed recovery outheals struggle damage because of blissey's hp stat, that's why I said that it only works if you trap a mon that has leech seed. Was I not clear enough with that? I could try to edit it so that everyone knows what I mean.

 

[MAMP]

correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure the current implementation of ebc on showdown should catch this once the opponent starts struggling

 

[ThirdStrongestMole]

correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure the current implementation of ebc on showdown should catch this once the opponent starts struggling

It works, watch the replay that I just edited in to my post

 

[power]

He struggled 27 times from turns 97 to 124 before forfeiting, without EBC being triggered. Leech Seed outheals struggle, as evidenced in the replay, and the opponent is forced to use leech seed due to the fact that it is trapped and being pp stalled.

This certainly seems like something EBC is currently not catching, unless 27 struggles is not long enough to trigger EBC? Not totally sure on how EBC is implemented

 

[Shurtugal]

Ban the combination of Leppa Berry & Recycle as part of the clause

 

[ThirdStrongestMole]

Ban the combination of Leppa Berry & Recycle as part of the clause

I don't think that this would be the correct solution because pp stalling with leppa berry + recycle + block is a legitimate competitive strategy that you will sometimes see on stall teams. I'm really not sure either what the correct ban here would be though, that's the main reason I made the thread. I appreciate the suggestion though and maybe others can also give their ideas.

 

[Shurtugal]

I don't think that this would be the correct solution because pp stalling with leppa berry + recycle + block is a legitimate competitive strategy that you will sometimes see on stall teams. I'm really not sure either what the correct ban here would be though, that's the main reason I made the thread. I appreciate the suggestion though and maybe others can also give their ideas.

I am only really knowledgeable in OU tiers, but to my knowledge this is a pretty weaker strategy with little effective use? I could see it maybe working in other tiers I am unfamiliar with though? I don't know if it is worth preserving but I lack the knowledge to make a fully educated response there I suppose.

I think if we do not go with that, that making EBC activate at X amount of Struggles would be a good fix?

 

[DoW]

There have been a number of posts here that seem confused about what the endless battle clause currently includes. The definitions can be found here: https://dex.pokemonshowdown.com/articles/battlerules#endlessbattleclause, or line 1546 of sim/battles.ts for those who prefer reading the code.

I think in keeping with Zarel's intention of ensuring that the clause cuts out as little from legitimate competitive play as possible, the best way to fix this issue would be to add some rule making Ferrothorn be stale in this situation, such as making any mon that struggles and ends the turn with >= its starting HP stale, or any mon that has struggled a certain number of moves in a row.
I see the "struggles and ends the turn with more HP than it started with" idea was noted here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/banning-leppa-berry.3544604/page-2#post-6335822, but apparently is no longer part of the clause. So I imagine that would be the simplest fix.

 

[Plague von Karma]

This sounds more like an issue with Leech Seed + Struggle - and by extension, any passive HP recovery in general - not being considered by Endless Battle Clause. The set provided isn't necessarily problematic on its own, and as DaWoblefet pointed out, these sets have competitive use. As showcased, Leech Seed prompted the endless battle, but Ferrothorn wasn't designated as stale. I think there's a better way to handle this.

So really, the clause needs to monitor recovery when Struggle recoil occurs to determine if an endless battle has begun. However, if I recall correctly, this does cause issues with GSC. I vaguely recall Earthworm bringing up something regarding genuine strategies involving Struggle use, while making tiny progress each turn. I'll edit this post with the thread if I find it.

EDIT: I found the thread, but in hindsight, I don't think it actually matters.

 

[Cynara]

Just ban Leppa berry and be done with endless battle clause exploitation, No serious competitive strats exist with Leppa Berry and offers a uncomplex, low collateral solution. Please let me know what niche endless strats exist that don't utilise leppa berry in case im missing something (with the exception of Gen 3 Wynaut / Wobbufett + leftovers - necessary to keep this ban), EBC is messy, confusing to read and not very user friendly for newer players, people just find ways around it too.

Post unrelated to the Replay in the OP because its obviously not a Endless Battle, more so a PP Stall strat.

 

[Exiline]

Just ban Leppa berry and be done with endless battle clause exploitation, No serious competitive strats exist with Leppa Berry and offers a uncomplex, low collateral solution. Please let me know what niche endless strats exist that don't utilise leppa berry in case im missing something (with the exception of Gen 3 Wynaut / Wobbufett + leftovers - necessary to keep this ban), EBC is messy, confusing to read and not very user friendly for newer players, people just find ways around it too.

Post unrelated to the Replay in the OP because its obviously not a Endless Battle, more so a PP Stall strat.

leppa has a niche on Serperior, and I'm pretty sure there could be other niches in leppa
I'd rather have a complex ban here

 

[Pigeons]

Endless Battles are a bit of a hobby for me and I can confirm the above set will not trigger the current EBC. A blanket ban on Leppa Berry has a bit too much competitive implication for my liking since the exact set in the OP does have use outside of triggering endless battles. The situation in the OP is actually fairly close to triggering EBC since the Blissey is considered stale, I agree with DoW and Plague that the definition of staling can be expanded to prevent this situation but the definitions they provided need a bit more precision to prevent accidental triggering of the clause.

So really, the clause needs to monitor recovery when Struggle recoil occurs to determine if an endless battle has begun. However, if I recall correctly, this does cause issues with GSC. I vaguely recall Earthworm bringing up something regarding genuine strategies involving Struggle use, while making tiny progress each turn. I'll edit this post with the thread if I find it.

EDIT: I found the thread, but in hindsight, I don't think it actually matters.

This is exactly the sort of situation we want to prevent EBC triggering on since it involves the use of a recoil-less Struggle to make progress. I've seen similar things pulled off in AG where Struggle is used on a Regenerator Pokemon to make progress against stall teams (since Struggle never runs out of PP). In theory a rule like the one below would account for these strategies and still catch edge cases like the one in the OP:

• Any Pokemon that uses Struggle and ends the turn with with more or as much HP as it started the turn with is considered stale if it is unable to switch out.

There are a few wording changes here from Zarel's proposal in this thread that should simplify things a bit. Firstly, making staling conditional on Struggle use should eliminate accidental triggering of the clause in situations where a paralyzed or Truant Pokemon is forced to Struggle repeatedly. The other important change is that the clause is now conditional on the Pokemon using Struggle being unable to switch out. This should account for cases like the ones mentioned in GSC since the situations described don't seem to involve a trapped Pokemon and both Pokemon would need to be stale in order for the clause to trigger anyways. This to me strikes the best balance between maintaining competitive integrity and preventing malicious endless battles, I can't think of a competitive use for keeping an opponent trapped and using Struggle while healing that doesn't involve some kind of obvious screwing around. Hopefully this kind of solution is practical coding-wise but I'm not an expert there. I also could be mistaken on some of the GSC mechanics so feel free to correct me.

I do understand the desire to simplify Endless Battle Clause because it's definitely a clunky beast, but I don't think it's a big issue at the end of the day. Endless Battle Clause is never going to affect the vast majority of players and I think the complexity is necessary to prevent it interfering with legitimate strategies. If simplicity is the only goal you can just remove EBC entirely and let the 1000 turn limit prevent anything truly "endless". Let the Funbros rain from the heavens! Don't actually do this.