By this logic we should play Stadium's bring 6, play with 3 thingI believe Freeze Clause SHOULD be implemented, and here's why:
-snip-
That's a gross misunderstanding of my point and I think you know it. One, Stadium allowed 6v6 battles anyway, so bad example on your part. Two, the point was that Stadium introduced a whole bunch of elements designed SPECIFICALLY to cater to a competitive/tournament style of play. They had bring 6, play 3. They had Poke Cup, Pika Cup, etc. They had clauses. We don't HAVE to use EVERYTHING ever introduced, but the fact that they WERE introduced AT ALL indicates a willingness or eagerness on the part of Nintendo to explore ways to create a different style of play than was possible simply by linking up two Game Boys, and that feeds my point that philosophically the option to create a mechanical freeze clause on simulators is valid. The Link Cable battling system was an immature system because Nintendo didn't anticipate what Pokemon would very quickly become (and who knows, maybe system limitations played a role too). Stadium was, for all intents and purposes, Nintendo's way of saying "Look, we know the Link Cable is a hassle and immature, so look what we did HERE to make trading and battling way more comprehensive and nuanced." So, like I said before, game mechanics are one thing, and tournament mechanics are another. Like Stadium, a simulator is a way to bring people together to battle Pokemon at a higher, competitive level. In that spirit, the application of tournament mechanics to the simulator, even though the battles themselves use cartridge mechanics, doesn't seem controversial to me. Specifically, I think this justifies mechanical Freeze Clause in simulators despite the fact that it didn't exist in cartridge, and that is why I support implementing one (I have similar thoughts towards mechanical Sleep Clause).My initial reaction to no freeze clause was "ew no" but thinking about it I don't really have an argument to justify this, but I'd love someone on the pro clause side to convince me.
By this logic we should play Stadium's bring 6, play with 3 thing
It wasn't my intention to misrepresent you, I'd forgotten you could 6v6 in Stadium, sorry about that. And I don't disagree that Gamefreak probably wanted freeze clause in a competitive cartridge environment, and it justifies the existence of freeze clause as an option, but I also think it's too subjective to make it mandatory. If it is the latter you're arguing?That's a gross misunderstanding of my point and I think you know it. One, Stadium allowed 6v6 battles anyway, so bad example on your part. Two, the point was that Stadium introduced a whole bunch of elements designed SPECIFICALLY to cater to a competitive/tournament style of play. They had bring 6, play 3. They had Poke Cup, Pika Cup, etc. They had clauses. .
We can clause it and make it available through challenger :P (I mean, implement != force it on the meta, just have it available).
Analogy falls flat. It's a different interface to enter choices. The choices offered and the results of those choices remain the same.Let's remove the cancel button, it doesn't exist on the cartridge... Because that is the main counterargument.
Unless it's otherwise statused (and if your opponent is refraining from paralysing anything? You're probably going to beat them anyway). Or it's an Ice-type. Lapras, Cloyster and Jynx are all perfectly viable OUs and none of them fall easily to Ice attacks.It's not the first time we don't emulate the cartdridge exactly. I don't understand why it suddently becomes so important. I understand the will of changing RBY's mechanics regarding paralysis because it does not affect the competitiveness of the tier (at least we can't see right now if it will unbalance the metagame). Freeze clause does by adding a 10% of OHKO for every ice beam.
I said I was uninterested in whiners. Why are you whining?Not having freeze clause in RBY is retarded.
Not having freeze clause in RBY when normals cant para normals with Bslam anymore is even more retarded.
Lets ditch freeze clause the moment normals cant get parad by bslam anymore - seems to be a good idea. Freeze clause should be implemented for every generation anyways unless you guys enjoy getting lucky af and winning that way (even a single freeze can be gamechanging in gens other than RBY why fk it up even more).
We banned fkin Swagger in XY - what better precedent is there to keep Freeze Clause. Atleast if we want to decide battles via skill and not luck....
Everything else has already been said by Isa:
As I said in the OP, I am perfectly fine with Freeze Clause in a Stadium metagame. But not in a cartridge metagame.i commented here already but i guess i should be on-topic now.
from what i understand, the urgency to get RBY into a playable state was due to SPL, and as far as i'm aware no RBY SPL player wants freeze clause gone. removing it would just make them play on PO, which is kinda counterproductive.
makes no sense imo.
the "correctness" of having it implemented vs not having it implemented is irrelevant imo because both sides have valid arguments. you guys busted your ass getting RBY to a playable state on PS, idk why you're willing to let that go to waste.
and apparently gamfreak added freeze clause to stadium anyway so there's that.
I don't have a problem with people deciding to play hacked metas if they want. I just don't think they should be passed off as non-hacked metas.Short phone post. My position is known since earlier (pro clause) and so are my arguments.
What I am really wondering at this point is why PS is so inflexible with clauses. Since opposition to freeze clause is a bit bigger than I thought, yet with pro freeze clause still being the majority opinion (as far as I can tell), why can't we have both things? I'd be willing to concede Freeze Clause not being standard on the ladder (back to PO ladder for me is all) but this decision should not be forced upon individual tournament hosts, who should ideally be able to choose their clauses freely. If even Acid Rain is becoming available...!
I should probably specify that Stadium mechanics with freeze clause on is not a viable solution to the demands for Cartridge plus freeze clause.
Or we do a suspect test with a ladder.
That's one sentence?!I feel that both the arguements for and against Freeze Clause are justifiable, especially within this grander context; as it stands though with the Dig/Fly glitch not even being implemented (if it were claused to have the feature disabled or having bringing the move being banned as a clause, then this is obviously contrary) I feel that Freeze Clause is perfectly fine, since currently we're actually neglecting the accurate cartridge mechanics anyway, and we're using a competitive ruling Nintendo originally had given us in a game designed to support the series, and the impacts of removing the clause would arguably be uncompetitive, there's enough in my mind to accept having freeze clause as standard in RBY OU is a sensible decision as a community.
As an aside, let me just note that half of OU can be OHKOed by a Tauros Hyper Beam crit, and several of those that can't by crits of its other moves. Teams without a Water or Alakazam are technically threatened to be 6-0ed by lead Tauros despite any defense (Snorlax is guaranteed one attack, but Selfdestruct might not OHKO even if they use it immediately).Comparing freeze and crits is a bit off. It's possible for a Pokemon to survive a crit and proceed to clean up a weakened team. A frozen Pokemon is just fucked. Freezes are more game-breaking, but they're also much less likely (especially two of them.)
If you don't want to play cartridge RBY, don't play cartridge RBY. Play Stadium or GSC or ADV or a billion other metas. Or for that matter, play one of the dedicated hacked metas like RBYPlus.Your argument may be right, at some point you have to choose if you want to play a competitive game or not. Do you remember RBY past SPL? Do you remember RBY barely coming back under the Bo3 condition? The tier already has a bigger part of luck than any other gen. So yes, you can still send every pokemon of your team on thunder wave if you want to avoid the freeze. It won't win you the game. Jynx, Lapras and Cloyster may be usable, but not the three together.
I just don't like the idea of adding luck for the sake of emulating closely. You are trying to fix something that ain't broken, and I am genuinely convinced it's not worth it.
What? No. Freeze Clause does not exist in-cartridge.What is exactly the point of this thread?
The freeze clause exists in Gen 1 as Golden Gyarados explained, and that is why we use it.
If your point is that freeze clause should be optional (with the option of removing the clause) then ok.
If your point is to remove freeze clause completely, it will not happen in RBY tournaments.