GSC Freeze Clause

[Lavos]

The GSC Council, consisting of myself/BKC/Earthworm/idiotfrommars/M Dragon, have decided to reinstate Freeze Clause.

When making a decision regarding whether or not to add a clause, we take into account two major components. First, how significantly does the clause deviate from cart mechanics, and second, is it necessary to preserve competitiveness for the metagame in question? Addressing the former, while Freeze Clause is not built into the carts, several tournaments hosted by Nintendo Japan in the G/S era manually enforced Freeze Clause. This represents the intent for it to exist in competitive settings, even though the technology to implement the clause itself was lacking at the time. Since that technology is readily available on our simulator, we don't have to worry about messy circumstances that could result from a manual clause which can activate outside of either player's control. As for the necessity of this clause we agreed, although not unanimously, that it is important to have a safeguard against potentially devastating multiple freezes in a metagame where the status effect itself is more potent than in any subsequent generation, not to mention the steadily increasing usage of moves that can induce freeze.

Tagging Zarel so that he can implement Freeze Clause Mod in GSC at his convenience.

 

[BKC]

Related reading:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/freeze-clause.3563226/
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/freeze-clause-in-gsc.3604388/

This thread will remain open. The council is happy to answer any questions about this.

 

[Zarel]

I've actually done a complete 180 since when I originally made PS. I originally thought it was more important to keep the sim as close to the games as possible, which is why I didn't implement Freeze Clause Mod: It was a tiny probability, and therefore not worth breaking mechanics for.

Now, I think, if we already have Sleep Clause Mod, Freeze Clause Mod is basically the same thing. If we can prevent a tiny probability of screwing a player over by doing basically the same thing we were already doing, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, the question: Why not apply this to all gens?

 

[Fear]

Being the original poster of the later topic in favor of freeze clause being re-instated, I feel obligated to mention that it's absurd how easily can someone fish for multiple freezes with Gengar when playing against speficic OU pokemon such as but not limited to: Standard Miltank(one of two usable OU heal bell users), Restalk Curse Snorlax(best defensive pokemon in game), Standard Forretress(spikes spin toxic explosion) as well as giga or hp fire Forre to a lesser extend.
Additionally, Nidoking is the second best mon at this, enjoying switch outs from Mono attack Raikou(reflect/toxic roar thunder rest) and has 2 of his major counters, Umbreon / Heracross sit on him without immediately threatening him. Other notable ice move users(Jynx, Suicune, Cloyster, Blissey) usually have better things to do per turn but its not unlikely to get opportunistic in shooting ice beams aiming at freezing electrics/lax switch ins.

One may argue that such examples aren't specifically leading into multiple freeze scenarios, but my intention is to exemplify low risk high reward plays where using Ice Beam/Punch abuses the non Freeze clause window to get opportunistic status; freezing a second mon because the main counter has been already frozen is game over on most circumstances given the 10% thaw chance at the END of turn and limited heal bell spread.

You said the decision wasn't unanimously, my question is what was the main opinion against the decision? Additionally you mention steady increase in usage of moves that can induce freeze, which I'd love to hear some further elaboration on, out of plain interest on metagame development(on the top of my head, more Jynx and more Ice beam Cloysters).

 

[Quantum Tesseract]

I've actually done a complete 180 since when I originally made PS. I originally thought it was more important to keep the sim as close to the games as possible, which is why I didn't implement Freeze Clause Mod: It was a tiny probability, and therefore not worth breaking mechanics for.

Now, I think, if we already have Sleep Clause Mod, Freeze Clause Mod is basically the same thing. If we can prevent a tiny probability of screwing a player over by doing basically the same thing we were already doing, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, the question: Why not apply this to all gens?

Well, to make the argument; in later gens, much more freeze counterplay exists.
-Frozen Pokemon can attack on the turn they thaw
-More pokemon get Heal Bell or Aromatherapy
-Several abilities can render freeze largely a nonfactor, most notably natural cure but others exist
-The metagames are more offensive (much more offensive, in some gens), meaning the turns spent fishing for freeze are more easy to punish (though admittedly this also goes for the value of turns while the enemy is fozen)
-Water and Fire types are better freeze sponges because they can melt the ice with scald or fire moves.
-Ice beam (and ice punch) have much more competition for moveslots

This doesnt neccesarily mean it shouldnt be applied to later gens, but it doesnt follow that freeze being too strong in gen 2 means its also too strong in other gens.

E: I forgot that unthaw got bumped to 20% in later gens, thanks sedertz for pointing that out. That's even bigger than the others, really.

 

[Earthworm]

The Bulbapedia page states that a tournament was played using Gold and Silver cartridges but with Freeze Clause enabled. Assuming this is accurate, I don't strongly oppose the implementation (as it now would not break mechanics and may fall under the same umbrella as RBY's Freeze Clause), although I still oppose it because it is unnecessary. Does anyone have any sources corroborating the information or elaborating on its implementation?

I view the "Gengar can fish for multiple freezes" argument as a benefit to using Gengar and a disadvantage of using Pokemon that can't touch it. (although many of them can stall it relatively freely by Resting anyway).

 

[Sapientia]

I've actually done a complete 180 since when I originally made PS. I originally thought it was more important to keep the sim as close to the games as possible, which is why I didn't implement Freeze Clause Mod: It was a tiny probability, and therefore not worth breaking mechanics for.

Actually, there is a way to satisfy both the Freeze Clause proponents and the "true to the game" crowd: Do not remove the freeze-inducing effect after the initial freeze, but rather let the player who causes 2 opposing Pokemon to be frozen simultaneously lose instantly.

This solution would have the added benefit of counteracting the devastating effects of a singular freeze, since your opponent now has a 10% chance of losing, if he decides to continue Ice Beaming/Punching an unstatused Pokemon of yours.

 

[Bughouse]

Can Old Gen councils please post the actual votes of individual members? Most other tier councils do this (though not always...) such as:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...r-victini-banned.3591786/page-11#post-7195628
http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...swagger-is-banned.3599122/page-4#post-7443646
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/lc-ban-list-votes.3589646/#post-7135822

Just somewhat surprised with this outcome since I have seen support in the linked threads from M Dragon and ifm and opposition from Lavos and EW. So was this 3-2 in favor of the clause based on BKC's 5th vote?

 

[Lavos]

You said the decision wasn't unanimously, my question is what was the main opinion against the decision? Additionally you mention steady increase in usage of moves that can induce freeze, which I'd love to hear some further elaboration on, out of plain interest on metagame development(on the top of my head, more Jynx and more Ice beam Cloysters).

Based on our discussions, the main two arguments against Freeze Clause were that the incidence rate of multiple freezes in one game is low enough as not to warrant an entire clause, and that being able to freeze multiple pokemon on your opponent's team should always be left open as a potential avenue to victory (you should be able to "play to your win condition" in this circumstance; Freeze Clause could rarely prevent this).

As for the metagame's development, anecdotally speaking I've experienced a sharp rise in the usage of Nidoking and Jynx since sleep turns were fixed, which was about 6 months ago. Nidoking in particular has risen to top 10 status. Both of these pokemon are notorious for spamming Ice Beam. Separate from that, IB+HpElec Cloyster has become rather popular as a measure to offensively check the common boom team core of Zap+Cloy. Gengar hasn't dropped in usage as far as I'm aware, I still see it as a top 10 pokemon.

Actually, there is a way to satisfy both the Freeze Clause proponents and the "true to the game" crowd: Do not remove the freeze-inducing effect after the initial freeze, but rather let the player who causes 2 opposing Pokemon to be frozen simultaneously lose instantly.

This solution would have the added benefit of counteracting the devastating effects of a singular freeze, since your opponent now has a 10% chance of losing, if he decides to continue Ice Beaming/Punching an unstatused Pokemon of yours.

I really dislike this solution since it discourages people from playing optimally based on a condition that they have no control over. This would be akin to proposing that in ADV, if you already put one of your opponent's pokemon to sleep, you instantly lose the game when your Breloom's Effect Spore happens to trigger sleep on an enemy's attack. Going all the way back to the NetBattle era, Sleep Clause was implemented in a way where the mod activates automatically upon the game attempting to put multiple pokemon to sleep, and this was done intentionally to avoid the kind of circumstance you're suggesting.

 

[Mr.E]

We have a GSC Council?

We got rid of Freeze Clause in the first place?

Edit: Serious stuff.

Now, I think, if we already have Sleep Clause Mod, Freeze Clause Mod is basically the same thing. If we can prevent a tiny probability of screwing a player over by doing basically the same thing we were already doing, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

So, the question: Why not apply this to all gens?

Sleep Clause, and a lot of the other clauses really, are different from Freeze Clause. Sleep Clause is standard because sleep is a similarly broken status, a complete disable for many turns, and the moves that induce it are all more or less fairly accurate. A fast sleep user would generate an incredible number of free turns if was allowed to fully abuse its strength, minus a fairly limited set of mediocre soft counters (Chesto Berry, Sleep Talk especially post-gen 2, etc.). Evasion and OHKO clauses exist mostly to prevent players from just turning a competitive match into a weighted (slightly against themselves) coin flip bereft of any real decision-making, mindgames and probability management, although in GSC specifically OHKO moves are overpowered too.

Freeze Clause mostly exists to prevent plain ol' bad RNG from ruining the 1/500 (arbitrary number pulled out of my ass) games where somebody would've otherwise gotten exceptionally lucky. It's only in RBY where the status is particularly broken and thus abusable. Gen 2 freeze is still stronger than its Gen 3-onward counterparts, but still significantly weakened enough as a "legitimate strategy" as to not be especially abusable. I don't believe it's necessary anymore than some anti-crit mod/clause would be or whatever. If we could just clause all the luck out of the game, I'd win 95% of the time. *yawn*

Most of my peace was stated in the first linked thread by BKC back then, my opinion hasn't really changed. I am weakly against Freeze Clause for these reasons, but it's not worth my effort to fight against it if the majority wants it because it just doesn't matter very much either way.

As for the metagame's development, anecdotally speaking I've experienced a sharp rise in the usage of Nidoking and Jynx since sleep turns were fixed, which was about 6 months ago.

Nidoking's always been in the lower reaches of Top 10 usage, and Jynx simply went from "literally never used" to "fringe surprise option" (probably more on account of what I and later BKC did with it last SPL than the past few months tbh). Meh.

 

[DragonWhale]

Which GSC mechanic is PS actually simulating? There's GB Colosseum (link battle between GSC cartridges), GB Mobile Colosseum (Battle between two Crystal cartridges using the mobile adapter), and N64 Pokemon Stadium 2. Of these, Stadium 2 has a built in Freeze and Sleep clause (among other differences like 1-3 turn sleep and ignoring burn/para stat drops when your stat changes). It's probably an important thing to clarify moving forward.

 

[Theorymon]

For being "true to the game", maybe a bit of research can be done on Pokemon Stadium 2? I'm fairly certain that game has a freeze clause, and even allows you to make custom rulesets (so 6v6 would be possible).

Now, Pokemon Stadium 2 does have team preview, which would be a huge shock, but you can probably weasel around this by saying that in a eral life tournament, judges could cover up the screen to block team preview, since Pokemon are assigned a button, and also require that you always choose the first Pokemon in your party. It's a cheesy way of going about things, but it's not like we haven't done stuff like this before for Smogon clauses!

Are there any other serious disadvantages of using a "Pokemon Stadium 2" ruleset? Only things I know of are that the Present glitch is fixed, and they show your foe's HP (which means nothing because everything has max HP lol). There could be some crazy glitch fixes that fuck shit up though, so we' need research to be done if we went that far!

 

[Zarel]

Also, I asked for a survey of GSC players in the last thread, did that actually happen?

I don't object to privately doing a council vote for things like this, but you should at least have the veneer of collecting information about what the public thinks, before voting. Like the recent Net Neutrality vote. You can ignore the public opinion but you should at least collect it. Personally, that's how I develop PS, if it's more than ~80% in one direction, that'll be enough to re-evaluate my opinion.

I ask because there seems to be still more policy discussion in this thread, which leads me to think I should be holding off implementation until it's resolved.

 

[Lavos]

Which GSC mechanic is PS actually simulating? There's GB Colosseum (link battle between GSC cartridges), GB Mobile Colosseum (Battle between two Crystal cartridges using the mobile adapter), and N64 Pokemon Stadium 2. Of these, Stadium 2 has a built in Freeze and Sleep clause (among other differences like 1-3 turn sleep and ignoring burn/para stat drops when your stat changes). It's probably an important thing to clarify moving forward.

We simulate a link battle between two G/S/C cartridges on Game Boy Color, hence the implementation of the G/S exclusive Present glitch, etc.

Also, I asked for a survey of GSC players in the last thread, did that actually happen?

I don't object to privately doing a council vote for things like this, but you should at least have the veneer of collecting information about what the public thinks, before voting. Like the recent Net Neutrality vote. You can ignore the public opinion but you should at least collect it. Personally, that's how I develop PS, if it's more than ~80% in one direction, that'll be enough to re-evaluate my opinion.

I ask because there seems to be still more policy discussion in this thread, which leads me to think I should be holding off implementation until it's resolved.

We did not conduct a formal survey of the active GSC tournament playerbase. I have been conducting what could amount to an informal survey over the past half year, basically since Fear's thread was closed prematurely. I can tell you that the majority are in favor of this clause. Due to the timing of this decision being right before week 1 of SPL, we figured it was better to have an internal vote which would expedite the process. Holding a community vote would have wasted time, with the result being a foregone conclusion. Your comparison of us to the FCC, an organization which used the names of dead people to post fake comments on their website and went against the will of 90% of the public, is therefore not only unwarranted but also extremely insulting. There is ample precedent for councils deciding clause-related matters privately, the most recent of which is the decision on ADV switch priority. Not sure what ongoing policy discussion you're referring to, unless it's Earthworm's post. He was the sole dissenting opinion on the council so naturally he's going to give his thoughts on the matter.

As BKC said, we're happy to answer questions, but the decision itself is final.

 

[Zarel]

Your comparison of us to the FCC, an organization which used the names of dead people to post fake comments on their website and went against the will of 90% of the public, is therefore not only unwarranted but also extremely insulting.

Man, people get really insulted by analogies. :| I'm sorry you took it that way, but the real problem here is that I don't think like that.

When I say "mixing baking soda and vinegar will create a foam explosion similar to a volcano", I'm not saying that baking soda and vinegar will cause deaths and billions of dollars of property damage and make an area unlivable and the air unbreatheable for long periods of time, I'm saying that the shape is similar. The deaths and property damage are entirely irrelevant to the analogy.

Similarly, my FCC analogy was because I like how the FCC collects comments but doesn't have to listen to them. I think council decisions should work the same way. I didn't mean to imply you went against the will of the public; that part was entirely irrelevant. I'm sorry it gave that impression.

I honestly am still confused by which analogies are and aren't okay. Like, people keep on being offended when I make analogies but I can't figure out why. Is it just a bad idea to make analogies to things people don't like? But like no one likes deaths and property damage, but volcano analogies are okay.

There is ample precedent for councils deciding clause-related matters privately, the most recent of which is the decision on ADV switch priority. Not sure what ongoing policy discussion you're referring to, unless it's Earthworm's post. He was the sole dissenting opinion on the council so naturally he's going to give his thoughts on the matter.

As BKC said, we're happy to answer questions, but the decision itself is final.

I was talking about Theorymon's post, which proposed adopting Stadium 2 mechanics and seemed to gather a lot of support.

 

[The Quasar]

Notwithstanding my personal opionion about it (I agree with council about GSC freeze clause), is there any way we could do this together with Smogon players?

 

[Lavos]

I was talking about Theorymon's post, which proposed adopting Stadium 2 mechanics and seemed to gather a lot of support.

The main differences are:

1) You can see your opponent's numerical HP instead of a % value (or if we're comparing to carts, a pixel display)
2) Present glitch from G/S is fixed
3) Belly Drum glitch is fixed (using the move when at or below 50% HP will fail; currently it gives +2 Attack)
4) No stat overflow so SD Wak, Skarm Cursing behind Reflect, etc. are safe (thanks Mr.378 for pointing this out)

Of these, the BD glitch and the stat overflow are pretty relevant to the GSC OU metagame. Additionally I believe that we always simulate the carts first and foremost, I'm not sure what the future-gens equivalent to Stadium would be but RBY definitely simulates the carts over Stadium.

 

[Zarel]

I'm not sure what the future-gens equivalent to Stadium would be but RBY definitely simulates the carts over Stadium.

PBR is the Gen 4 equivalent to Stadium:

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_Battle_Revolution

Colosseum is the Gen 3 equivalent:

https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_Colosseum

XD is kind of Stadium-like but is also a lot more story-focused.

Other gens don't have an equivalent.

 

[Theorymon]

Probably not too relevant to this thread, but since Zarel brought it up: note that PBR (and I think Colosseum) are notable for not having the latest formes. So for example, Giratina-O and Shaymin-S don't exist in Pokemon Battle Revolution. PBR in particular has DP mechanics for most stuff, such as the 70% accuracy of Hypnosis.

AFAIK, Pokemon XD, like the others, has the "latest additions" to it's gen.

 

[Shurtugal]

Freeze is kind of a broken status to begin with. Is there really any reason to keep it in any tier? Hear me out: there isn't a move like Thunder Wave or Will-O-Wisp that is solely used to induce Freeze status (because that would be broken lol), so it isn't like Freeze is part of most player's strategy. Of course, I'm only speaking for higher tiers, as perhaps Freeze fishing is more likely in GSC. The reason why I'm commenting even though I don't play GSC is because Freeze is very fundamentally noncompetitive in nature -- across all generations you don't have a very high chance of unthawing and it's always induced as a side effect from other legitimate moves such as Ice Beam -- it isn't like people are inducing freeze with an actual move where Freeze is the purpose, so it really luck-based status that doesn't really take any skill and can severely alter the outcome of a match. Even in metagames like USUM OU, getting Frozen is like playing with an entire Pokemon KO'd!

I know we don't normally make clauses without good reason, but personally I'd like to say that I wouldn't mind having Freeze claused out entirely. Freeze offers nothing good to any of our competitive metagames, and I think most people who have played this game long enough would agree that there is already enough RNG/Hax as it is, and we would be better off removing it entirely. Because really, Freeze in not a healthy competitive component, and removing it would only benefit the metagames it's removed from.

I know the counterargument would be that it isn't broken in higher tiers, and that's fine, but thought I'd voice out my thoughts on freeze as a whole in the Pokemon game. Getting back on the more specific topic: I don't see why we can't clause out Freeze in GSC if there are actual strategies that rely on fishing for them, because that just sounds like aids to play against if that's viable.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

There's a rather significant difference between moderating the effects of certain aspects of the game and fundamentally changing the engine that drives it.

You're effectively suggesting we set all freeze rates to 0% at which point you stop playing competitive Pokemon and start playing a simulation of such.