• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

OU ADV OU Bans (ruleset change) discussion

Allegedly EBC will be fully implemented soon so hopefully that will handle the diglett attract stuff.

While we're on the subject of EBC, I present Funbreon.

Umbreon @ Leftovers
Ability: Synchronize
EVs: 252 HP / 216 Def / 40 SpD
Calm Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Psych Up
- Charm
- Rest
- Mean Look

Use it with weatherclear and after you trap something you can use psych up on your own charms to set both sides attack to -6 and make struggles do nothing.

Proof of concept: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2426410526-coc3lds6uaocp2b56aw3qtgnl2d3qlfpw
 
giraffefromholland said:
Does anybody know the reason why there isn't a Sand Attack ban more generally?
Click to expand...
As I understand OGC would need to sign off on it though someone please correct me if that is incorrect.


gnore said:
discussions i've found about EBC have only touched later gen berry loops.
i just had this battle:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2436042825?p2
View attachment 769324
it would be nice if EBC would trigger sometime after the 100th turn if this many deliberate components are present.
i don't want to dive into accuracy move & trapper discussions on their own, just when so piled together it is obvious there is no attempt to allow a winner to be determined.

min noncrit dam&recoil:
0- Atk 0 IVs Diglett Struggle vs. 196 HP / 252+ Def Blissey: 29-35 (4.1 - 5%) -- possibly the worst move ever
252 HP Struggle 4.1 - 5% (3.2 - 3.9% recoil damage)

max noncrit dam&recoil:
252+ Atk Diglett Struggle vs. 196 HP / 252+ Def Blissey: 63-75 (9 - 10.7%) -- possibly the worst move ever
0 HP 0 IV Struggle 9 - 10.7% (12.1 - 14.4% recoil damage)

with leftovers and no sand, i think there is a threshold that can trigger when the chances of not being endless are infinitesimally small.

i was advised i could report them if they declined the draw offer, but they accepted & i lost rating.
i was just using my suspect attempt account to test out some teams, i would've just left but i don't want this guy laddering with this strat.


idk if this is the same guy, but it looks like the same team:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen3ou-2141693301?p2

at least allow a draw to issue without letting the lower rated player exploit the scenario to gain rating, however inefficient it is at that goal
Click to expand...
disclaimer: I have not touched policy since gen 5 into early gen 6, where I was early to the party asking for something like what would eventually turn into EBC because of what very slow play was doing to Balanced Hackmons in gen 5, which I was OM leader for at the time. Policy staff and thoughts have obviously changed a lot in the interim... decade...

The current iteration of EBC is implemented here and the unit tests are here. There are attempts to catch such situations but as it turns out it is extremely hard to draft conditional logic that simultaneously:
  • minimizes restrictions on legitimate "playing to win" tactics
  • only hit explicit "playing with your food" tactics
  • are easy for players to understand at a glance when looking at the rules
If something isn't being done it's probably running afoul of points 1 and/or 3.
 
verbatim said:
As I understand OGC would need to sign off on it though someone please correct me if that is incorrect.



disclaimer: I have not touched policy since gen 5 into early gen 6, where I was early to the party asking for something like what would eventually turn into EBC because of what very slow play was doing to Balanced Hackmons in gen 5, which I was OM leader for at the time. Policy staff and thoughts have obviously changed a lot in the interim... decade...

The current iteration of EBC is implemented here and the unit tests are here. There are attempts to catch such situations but as it turns out it is extremely hard to draft conditional logic that simultaneously:
  • minimizes restrictions on legitimate "playing to win" tactics
  • only hit explicit "playing with your food" tactics
  • are easy for players to understand at a glance when looking at the rules
If something isn't being done it's probably running afoul of points 1 and/or 3.
Click to expand...
Point 1:
If a player is placed in a position, where they can only click struggle and never progress within the turn limit, by the other player who has options to end that position, the onus is on the player with agency to make progress, right? Otherwise it's clear they're either playing to draw or violate EBC. It can't be difficult for the system to observe that a player is in the former position. I don't think the boundary of defining that progress is important, since we want it to cover both literally & stochastically impossible-to-progress positions anyway. If they have an out that is barely possible, I'd rather have a rule that terminates the game without punishing that player than ensure their right to go for that slim, uncomfortable, and unreasonable chance. All effort can be put into assessing the player with initiative. There are some cases that will be more difficult than others. We can find and implement solutions to the easier ones that don't account for the harder ones before finding solutions to the harder ones, if any exist.

Point 3:
The clause says: "Players cannot intentionally prevent an opponent from being able to end the game without forfeiting."
That will always be easy enough for players to understand at a glance. They will never find these strategies without trying to violate this clause. If a player is looking for legitimate uses for the components of these strategies, those uses are also complicated enough to warrant more than a glance at the rules.

And I want to reiterate the last line of my earlier post:
at least allow a draw to issue without letting the lower rated player exploit the scenario to gain rating, however inefficient it is at that goal
I think a chess-style draw is an appropriate option for optimal play locks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top