-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
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.
Freeze Clause
- Thread starter magic9mushroom
- Start date
- Status
oh nbad brb abusing it B]
I'm not using tradition really much [not sure if this was aimed at me tho], just context of the philosophy (what there is of it) and the evident philosophies of other tiers and metagames and what I can surmise about this one to justify my opinion and give others information useful to discuss :)
I'm not using tradition really much [not sure if this was aimed at me tho], just context of the philosophy (what there is of it) and the evident philosophies of other tiers and metagames and what I can surmise about this one to justify my opinion and give others information useful to discuss :)
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
By this logic we should play Stadium's bring 6, play with 3 thing
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).
Hey, if a simulator WANTS to create an optional mode/clause to replicate Bring 6 Pick 3, that sounds cool by me (but again, as Joim and others keep pointing out, stop bringing in other scenarios - this thread is about Freeze Clause ONLY). Clauses are always optional. But make 'em available.
Last edited:
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.
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.
The thing is, the majority of active RBY players couldn't care less if they're playing "Smogonmon" instead of Pokemon. I can understand the arguments for the sake of real cartridge simulation and in fact I'm pretty ok with the clause gone, but really, if hypothetically we actually made official the no frz clause but my opponent for SPL/whatever official tourney wanted to make a gentlemen's agreement to play with the clause on, I'd agree without thinking twice.
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?
you do need a manual way even to play it with gentleman's agreement though
I think that was the plan anyway? Joim was talking about Acid Rain here but I imagine the same would have gone for Freeze Clause
Analogy falls flat. It's a different interface to enter choices. The choices offered and the results of those choices remain the same.
(In fact, the one situation I can think of where it does matter is ironically the cartridge's own cancel button being crucial to certain Wrap-related tactics, and our cancel button not providing that functionality.)
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.
I said I was uninterested in whiners. Why are you whining?
As I said in the OP, I am perfectly fine with Freeze Clause in a Stadium metagame. But not in a cartridge metagame.
Your argument also boils down to "these people will leave if we don't pander to them". This argument is morally hazardous because it amounts to blackmail.
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.
That's one sentence?!
Anyway I think Dig/Fly glitch should be implemented and use of Dig and Fly banned in competitive contexts (ie ladders, tournaments).
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).
(Well, now that I think about it, all teams are threatened to be 6-0ed by anything capable of either paralysing, dealing exactly 255 damage to or OHKOing both Starmie and Alakazam (crits are permitted). Because we didn't clause 255 misses. You'd think those would be on the chopping block before multifreezes. Though, again, I don't think they should be claused.)
Last edited:
yeah as it stands Dig/Fly glitch is implemented (but, insection, the bug is bugged - and reported already dun worry), and that makes the backing context a little weaker.
As it stands I'm kind of happy whether or not freeze clause gets implemented. As a competitive player I'd probably err on the side of it being implemented, but I see the opposite as being agreeable too.
*abstains from any more significant opinions, just leaving walls of information to help people make up their minds*
As it stands I'm kind of happy whether or not freeze clause gets implemented. As a competitive player I'd probably err on the side of it being implemented, but I see the opposite as being agreeable too.
*abstains from any more significant opinions, just leaving walls of information to help people make up their minds*
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
But pretending that a hackjob which is not cartridge RBY is in fact cartridge RBY is silly.
What? No. Freeze Clause does not exist in-cartridge.
And your last sentence is just gibberish. Declaring victory before a battle will not alter its outcome.
Last edited:
Except we're Tournament Directors (as is McMeghan who's reading this) so if we say Freeze Clause will not be removed from Smogon Tournaments, it will not be removed from Smogon Tournaments. (you saying his last line is gibberish is the asshole comment I made before, knock if off).
And he meant Freeze Clause does exist in Gen 1 (Stadium). The fact is that RBY has Zero Clauses altogether, but they do exist on Stadium. Therefore, the logic is to use the Clauses meant for competitive play when simulating the cartridges (which Stadium was used for as GG pointed out), but ignoring the mechanics fixes that Stadium implemented.
And he meant Freeze Clause does exist in Gen 1 (Stadium). The fact is that RBY has Zero Clauses altogether, but they do exist on Stadium. Therefore, the logic is to use the Clauses meant for competitive play when simulating the cartridges (which Stadium was used for as GG pointed out), but ignoring the mechanics fixes that Stadium implemented.
There are some exceptions to the rule of "always strive to adhere to cart as much as possible," namely sleep clause in any gen and freeze clause in rby.
These two exceptions aren't changing...nice try. Call us whiners, call us scrubs, call us whatever you want.
Nice Effort though.
(just in case anyone is unclear, yea, we'll be implementing the body slam para not effecting normals things, we won't be removing freeze clause, and we won't be removing sleep clause)
These two exceptions aren't changing...nice try. Call us whiners, call us scrubs, call us whatever you want.
Nice Effort though.
(just in case anyone is unclear, yea, we'll be implementing the body slam para not effecting normals things, we won't be removing freeze clause, and we won't be removing sleep clause)
I honestly can't believe I'm even for one second entertaining magic9mushroom's bullshit sense of entitlement, particularly after his FIRST advance to me was to threaten me, but apparently even Jorgen believes I have trivialized the issue and is stating as such, so here we go.
First of all, a little context about the "community" or "playerbase" buzzword m9m so expertly throws around: hint, our community is not merely the forum...it is irc as well. In fact, I'd like to wager that 90% of policy is decided on irc through LIVE conversations. So before you claim knowledge of a large entity like smogon's "community" or "playerbase", be sure you have at least some foothold in the irc side of things so you actually know what's up.
Second, I've asked multiple moderators and they ALL (as in, not even 1 opposed) agree that the topic was already decided. The conversation had reached a tipping point and m9m himself responding extremely snippily, signaling a necessary point for moderators to step in. If this was a topic where the end result was even somewhat in doubt, we'd probably clean it up (without m9m's entitlement bullshit) and repost it, but, as I stated in the first point, OUR COMMUNITY IS SIGNIFICANTLY BASED IN IRC.
Take a wild guess as to what was occurring live on irc?
Hint: it involved a mass gathering mockery of the attempt to remove freeze clause from the RBY ruleset. It would be entirely fair to say that 90+% of people on irc thought it was completely nonsense, and the other 10-% just wanted the topic to stay open for laughs.
The debate happened...you lost. The debate also happened momentarily on irc, before everyone realized there was no debate because the OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TO THIS WAS "LOL NO, FUCK THAT GUY"
Here is the other issue that m9m, jorgen, froggy25, and whoever else have missed: we've already had these debates before, NUMEROUS TIMES. They have all ended with "yes, we will strive to adhere to the cart as much as possible." Guess what though? They have also ended with the realization that rules can have exceptions, and we determined freeze clause in rby and sleep clause across the generations as worthy of exception status.
So, I'm not really sorry if you feel you were shut up (particularly m9m with his stupid sense of entitlement), or if you feel this topic was trivialized; the bottom line is that we've already had this conversation before, many times, and it's always ended the same way.
It's on you if you weren't a part of this before.
Also, there was an attempt last generation to "fix" sleep clause by adding a bunch of hooks to various actions for the second sleep...and it fell entirely on its ass.
First of all, a little context about the "community" or "playerbase" buzzword m9m so expertly throws around: hint, our community is not merely the forum...it is irc as well. In fact, I'd like to wager that 90% of policy is decided on irc through LIVE conversations. So before you claim knowledge of a large entity like smogon's "community" or "playerbase", be sure you have at least some foothold in the irc side of things so you actually know what's up.
Second, I've asked multiple moderators and they ALL (as in, not even 1 opposed) agree that the topic was already decided. The conversation had reached a tipping point and m9m himself responding extremely snippily, signaling a necessary point for moderators to step in. If this was a topic where the end result was even somewhat in doubt, we'd probably clean it up (without m9m's entitlement bullshit) and repost it, but, as I stated in the first point, OUR COMMUNITY IS SIGNIFICANTLY BASED IN IRC.
Take a wild guess as to what was occurring live on irc?
Hint: it involved a mass gathering mockery of the attempt to remove freeze clause from the RBY ruleset. It would be entirely fair to say that 90+% of people on irc thought it was completely nonsense, and the other 10-% just wanted the topic to stay open for laughs.
The debate happened...you lost. The debate also happened momentarily on irc, before everyone realized there was no debate because the OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TO THIS WAS "LOL NO, FUCK THAT GUY"
Here is the other issue that m9m, jorgen, froggy25, and whoever else have missed: we've already had these debates before, NUMEROUS TIMES. They have all ended with "yes, we will strive to adhere to the cart as much as possible." Guess what though? They have also ended with the realization that rules can have exceptions, and we determined freeze clause in rby and sleep clause across the generations as worthy of exception status.
So, I'm not really sorry if you feel you were shut up (particularly m9m with his stupid sense of entitlement), or if you feel this topic was trivialized; the bottom line is that we've already had this conversation before, many times, and it's always ended the same way.
It's on you if you weren't a part of this before.
Also, there was an attempt last generation to "fix" sleep clause by adding a bunch of hooks to various actions for the second sleep...and it fell entirely on its ass.
- Status