I don't understand the Freeze Clause's validity.

Alopex

There is no controllable way to freeze an opponent, it is always a low probability secondary effect of Ice attacks.

Strong Ice attacks are in short supply, with only 3 attacks ever really being used by anyone, and all of these a possible chance of Freeze.

But with these attacks, Freeze isn't the goal! So how can Smogon Tournaments justify the loss when the outcome was nowhere near intentional?

How is it their fault if they were "victims" of the very improbable event that both that pesky Ground type and that annoying Dragon type were both accidentally frozen by Ice Beam? The attack needed to be used and they got screwed for doing the right thing. How is this justifiably fair to the trainer who needed to use the Ice attack those two times?
 
Just a way for people to limit the amount of h4x in battles. Multiple freezes don't happen all that often anyway so the presence/absence of the rule is moot in most cases.
 
I don't understand it either. It makes sense on a simulator, where you can actually program it so it CAN'T freeze once something is frozen, but not on WiFi. I can't honestly see people saying "OMG, you used Ice Beam when my Infernape was already frozen! CHEATAR!!".

Discuss.
 
Hyoga said:
There is no controllable way to freeze an opponent, it is always a low probability secondary effect of Ice attacks.

Strong Ice attacks are in short supply, with only 3 attacks ever really being used by anyone, and all of these a possible chance of Freeze.

But with these attacks, Freeze isn't the goal! So how can Smogon Tournaments justify the loss when the outcome was nowhere near intentional?

How is it their fault if they were "victims" of the very improbable event that both that pesky Ground type and that annoying Dragon type were both accidentally frozen by Ice Beam? The attack needed to be used and they got screwed for doing the right thing. How is this justifiably fair to the trainer who needed to use the Ice attack those two times?
Click to expand...
those reasons are why freeze clause usually isn't used for wifi battles. although i will admit i have used ice beam with intent to freeze to end some annoying stall battles.
 
Yoda, I don't follow how the rule reduces hax. The only thing that can increase freezing probability is the Toge line's Serene Grace.

backlot said:
those reasons are why freeze clause usually is used for wifi battles. although i will admit i have used ice beam with intent to freeze to end some annoying stall battles.
Click to expand...

Is or isn't?

And yeah, freezing the opponent's Pokemon is something we all hope happens mainly because it never happens. Problem is that now we need to fear that outcome instead of desire it.
 
Huh if you use Ice Beam when you have already frozen something, you aren't breaking Freeze Clause. Did the IB freeze again? It didn't, therefore I don't see how idiots can claim that breaking freeze clause.
 
I hate Freeze Hax... I have the worst luck with freezing. Like 5+ turns to defrost, every single time... Argh.
Anyway, I would like some clarification on this issue. Seeing that freeze does not have a move like WOW or hypnosis... (and why not) this clause is a little more vague, for me at least.
 
Aeroblacktyl said:
Huh if you use Ice Beam when you have already frozen something, you aren't breaking Freeze Clause. Did the IB freeze again? It didn't, therefore I don't see how idiots can claim that breaking freeze clause.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, it could've. If your Ice Beam "accidentally" (because positive occurrences are now bad...) freezes twice, you broke the clause with no intent. You now lose. That's the problem with the clause. The R/B/Y days are over, that clause should be removed.
 
I agree, the clause definitely needs to be removed now that it's uncontrollable. I always got confused when people told me that there's a freeze clause. I'm glad that there's a thread now to discuss this.
 
Hyoga said:
Yoda, I don't follow how the rule reduces hax. The only thing that can increase freezing probability is the Toge line's Serene Grace.
Click to expand...

What I meant to say was that in the small probability that multiple Pokemon are frozen, the opponent may complain. The use of Freeze clause (from what I understand) is to remove that possibility. I personally don't care for it either way.
 
The tourny is on shoddy battle. On shoddy battle if you enable freeze clause moves that can freeze have a 0% chance of freezing if there's already something frozen.

On shoddy it makes sense, but ppl who try to apply it on wifi are stupid.
 
No but lets look this through. On battle simulators such as Shoddy, you use this clause and implement it as it can be programmed as such.

But on wifi, you can't control if you freeze or not. You can unintentionally break the clause. Therefore, it must be removed.
 
freeze now is no worse than sleep, and worse with moves like nightmare, dream eater and darkrai's dark void (not that any of those things are ever used). the only difference between the two is that sleep can be circumvented through sleep talk...which is only worth carrying if you design the pokemon to be a rest-talker or to absorb status.
 
Urza said:
freeze now is no worse than sleep, and worse with moves like nightmare, dream eater and darkrai's dark void (not that any of those things are ever used). the only difference between the two is that sleep can be circumvented through sleep talk...which is only worth carrying if you design the pokemon to be a rest-talker or to absorb status.
Click to expand...

But you cant put a clause on freeze unlike sleep. There is no move which has a 10% chance sleep or something. You can control when you want sleep. Unlike freeze
 
Hyoga said:
Yoda, I don't follow how the rule reduces hax. The only thing that can increase freezing probability is the Toge line's Serene Grace.



Is or isn't?

And yeah, freezing the opponent's Pokemon is something we all hope happens mainly because it never happens. Problem is that now we need to fear that outcome instead of desire it.
Click to expand...
i meant isn't. sorry, my mistake.
 
Multi-Freeze CAN happen, if you just happen to have a bit of bad luck. I would imagine the Clause is just to prevent unlucky opponents (or yourself) from becoming too disgruntled, should it ever happen.
 
I think what the above posters said pretty much summarize all that I have to say, but just a small note: One-turn freezes occur way too much on Shoddy, and so does freeze itself.
 
I see no reason to do away with it on any simulator. Everyone loves reducing the amount of luck in the game, right?

On Wi-Fi, you can't really tell someone "you lose because you froze two of my Pokemon", obviously. That doesn't mean the clause is invalid. It just means Wi-Fi needed an option like battle simulators have to give all Ice moves a 0% freeze rate after one Pokemon had been frozen (and put it back to what it originally was if a Pokemon is defrosted somehow).
 
Is it possible to have auto-enforced Freeze clause (like the one on Shoddy / Netbattle, where you simply cannot Freeze again) in any version of the game, including PBR?

If not, then Freeze clause shouldn't exist, but I was under the impression that there is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top