Proposal phoopes' Original Ruleset for Your Gen One Needs (PORYGON): the (hopefully) final thread about RBY cart accuracy vs. modding

[Volk]

I have some thoughts about several of these topics, but I'll focus on partial-trapping now because I think it's the most important. I think partial-trapping has more than demonstrated its strength and uncompetitiveness in basically every RBY tier, including OU at the highest level. My opinion on partial-trapping has evolved a lot over my years as a competitor. As I play and watch more games — and teams exploiting partial-trapping have become more optimized — I am increasingly having trouble defending it in any capacity. The pivoting element is way less skill-oriented than it is often made out to be, frequently being glorified guesswork, saddled with the bonus of leaving the perpetrator unpunished most of the time but being severely punished the rest of the time, with said outcome being subject entirely to random chance. I am really just not convinced that this is much of a "calculated risk." Even if you disagree with this, I see no non-arbitrary way to divorce "healthy pivoting" from dedicated partial-trapping teams that look to click nothing but the moves after using multiple inescapable paralysis-inducing moves or after clicking a single Agility. I suppose you could keep just Clamp to preserve Cloyster, but that's not how I like to approach tiering personally. Regardless, partial-trapping is extremely uninvolved, boring, and very much capable of reversing completely lost games.

Being an RBY UU Councilmember and an avid RBY NU player, I don't currently plan on putting up much resistance against transitivity in the event a vote is convened and partial-trapping (note: partial-trapping, not just Wrap) is banned from RBY OU.

Also, I'll add a quick note about RBY UU. I will admit I do like how Tentacruel has come to shape the tier throughout its lifespan. The way Tentacruel has shaped the relative viability of its peers makes for a very unique dynamic that I don't think any other tier has ever truly captured, and it is that dynamic that drew me to the tier (I can talk more about this dynamic at length, but I'll exercise some restraint for now). While the dynamic was and remains interesting to me, the reality is that it isn't really firm. Sometimes you position your Tentacruel or Dragonite or whatever really well to secure a game and it just fumbles because of a miss. Setting up a meta where the success of the objectively most effective strategies — Wrap may not be perfect, but you are often foolish if you choose not to run it — hinges entirely on random chance is precarious, to say the least. While this analysis is based on UU, I wouldn't be terribly shocked if partial-trapping evolved to become dominant in OU and other tiers, such that, even if not reliable or within player control, it emerges as the statistically strongest strategy to employ. I still really like RBY UU and I don't think Wrap is utterly devoid of skill expression in the context of the tier, but the precarity of partial-trapping isn't lost on me. And yes, I understand there are other issues that people have with RBY UU, but I'd like to stay on topic within this thread and tackle one thing at a time for now.

Cheers.

 

[Sabelette]

wrap/pt vote (also deciding if ou changes are transitive to lower tiers if this happens)
counter revote (im surprised this hasnt happened yet)
fight button/pt fix is not a council issue


sleep clause: denied already
256s: denied already
rng quirks: should be implemented once/if we have a full understanding of it

Just gonna write out my thoughts on all these things but not gonna relitigate things again:

Transitivity: as RBY lower tiers leader I am going to push very hard for transitivity on bans, our survey on confusion also had a question asking people's thoughts on transitivity and across any category you pick people more people were in favor of transitivity than against, with experienced players that get reqs in low tiers being supermajority in favor of transitivity on move bans. I am sure some people won't like it but as I said before it makes zero sense to tier mons when they lack moves like Sleep Powder or Wrap or Counter in one tier and then when you go a tier down suddenly they gain a move with big meta impact that was considered too strong for the higher tier. If we ban things for bring uncompetitive or being mods there's even less argument to keep them in some tiers but not others.

Wrap/PT: as literally the first person to jump in on ABR's original thread and say wrap doesn't need to be banned, I have changed my mind. I still think it's not "broken" but it is absolutely uncompetitive and primarily luck-based and because even shitmons like Weepinbell don't go down in one super effective hit you can just trade down paralysis and luck through. Ban all of it. If anything gets a pass it's Clamp for low PP and being a signature on a mon with no paralysis capability that is demonstrably not broken, but I don't think preserving that is essential, especially if it's going to lead to stupid arguments about preserving Bind or whatever else or only banning Wrap and none of the other moves. Wrap, Fire Spin, Bind are all luck-based thanks to paraspam and Agility on Spin/Wrap users, get them all out of here even if it takes Clamp out too.

Counter: neutral, I have given up on cart accuracy ever being considered at all so whatever. It definitely sucks to remove this from low tiers where it's not just an instant OHKO for a wrong guess but whatever OU wants to do is fine I guess and the lower tiers uses are not necessarily some high skill move.

Fight button: as said, not a council issue, this is just something that has to happen even if all PT gets banned because it still matters for metas where these moves are legal. I doubt we are banning the moves from Ubers and even if we do there are cart metas and OMs where this matters.

Sleep/256: as with counter I've given up on any hope of people giving a shit about cart accuracy, at this point let's just mod out freezes too to make the game fairer because that's far more egregious than anything else if we're not going to commit to cart accuracy.

RNG quirks: I'm actually against implementing these because PS already doesn't use an RNG system anything like the actual games and there's no way that will ever change, making it so certain outcomes of moves are .02% more or less likely is never going to happen and is silly.

 

[phoopes]

Hello, me again. I was waiting to bump this thread until there was big news and/or changes on the RBY front and guess what? There is a really great change that was just merged a few hours ago! Behold: the long-awaited FIGHT button!

It’s finally here! Big shoutouts to HiZo, Zarel, and Shellnuts for making this a reality (I’m just the policy review messenger lol). This was merged onto the main server just a few hours ago and I’m sure a lot of people are happy to see it (I know I am).

With that said, I wanted to revisit this thread. On the previous page, we got word from Star that said the only two things on the table as far as tiering action goes are Partial Trapping/Fight Button stuff as well as a Counter revote. We just had a “community pulse” thread in the RBY forum about Wrap and friends where lots of great posts were made about the health of the metagame, uncompetitiveness, etc. but we haven’t really had word from the council yet and what is being done so I’m going to tag them with the hopes of getting a response: Nails nicole7735 Sceptross Serpi (and Star i guess too), any updates on what exactly we’re doing in regards to partial trapping? My personal opinion is that this is a contentious issue so there should be a vote. This would require reqs which I don’t exactly know how you would determine (I don’t have an opinion yet on what reqs should be should this vote come to fruition) but I definitely think it’s something to consider given the community pulse thread.

The other thing I mentioned was a possible Counter/desynce revote. A few years ago I didn’t really think much of it, but this is another contentious issue as people have had problems with the way the vote was conducted for awhile, and the “community pulse” on this may have shifted too. Because of these two reasons I think a Counter/desync revote should be on the table as well. So I’m going to ask the council and Star to revisit this issue and think on it as well, with the understanding that determining reqs for these votes is probably going to be a contentious issue in its own right lol.

Regardless, I’m also going to advocate for any bans that happen at the OU level to be transitive to lower tiers as well. While to my understanding, a Partial Trapping and/or a Counter ban would shake up these metagames more than they would OU, I don’t think we should really consider that if votes on these issues are on the table. OU is the flagship metagame and every other lower tier should follow suit (maybe except Ubers if you count that as a lower tier? idk).

In summary:
-We finally have a FIGHT button!
-Can we get some answers on a Partial Trapping suspect?
-Can we also possibly get some answers on a Counter/desync revote?
-Any bans please make transitive to lower tiers

Thanks all, and hopefully we can put this thread to bed sometime soon so we never have to talk about the overarching theme of modding vs. cart accuracy ever again.

<3

 

[phoopes]

Hi all, me again. Presenting the sequel/subset to the PORYGON thread (not PORYGON2)...

The GOLDUC (Gen One Luck, Desyncs, and Ubiquitous Clauses) Post

Let's hope that the discussion that comes out of this can finally WRAP (lol) up this thread. To start, I'd like to remind everyone of what Star said was on/off the table over a year ago:

Off the Table

1. Species Clause (I didn’t think I’d have to mention this one but someone actually brought it up so lol)
2. Sleep Clause (We will not be making changes that involve removing the clause and adding lose conditions to the game)
3. Freeze Clause (Has been a huge part of the metagame for decades and also exists in other gens now. Not convincing enough reason or support to revert this now. Extending it in any way is also definitely not on the table.)
4. Tradeback Moves (This was already discussed and closed, not happening)
5. 256 Misses (While we do have a bunch of existing mods in RBY, that’s not really a reason to keep arbitrarily adding more. Misses are part of the game and the luck involved here is far less significant than Freeze clause for example.)

On the Table

1. Counter revote (Keep existing or ban the move)
2. Modifiable PP / Trapping move ban / Fight button (Lumped these together because they’re all about trapping moves realistically)

This seems pretty cut and dry of what we can actually discuss. But I think there's a little more wiggle room based off what Lily said in the recent thread about Sleep/Freeze Clause:

So the process here is to open a more targeted thread - say, Freeze Clause in ADV - and use it to both argue your case and gauge community support for change. We're only going to consider deviations from the status quo if people actually want it; I fully agree with you that cart accuracy is much more important than anything else, and tackling the sleep issue in Gen 9 was a massive positive. Things were done differently back then, though, and that's okay. Navigating that mess is a challenge on its own, even ignoring the modding issue; see stuff like Drizzle + Swift Swim in BW OU or ADV OU's struggles with Baton Pass. We're always happy to remove mods if the playerbase sees it as beneficial, but that "if" really does need to be met.

We also *are not* adding new mods, like, ever. Freeze Clause in ADV / DPP was an exception, and it's entirely arguable that it shouldn't have been, but barring extreme circumstances that will not be happening again. Nothing is ever really permanent around here so consider the door 99% shut instead.

I'd like to highlight two parts here: the first being that "We're always happy to remove mods if the playerbase sees it as beneficial, but that "if" really does need to be met." To me, this means that removal of Sleep/Freeze Clause is back on the table, since it is clearly controversial as evidenced by the thread from which Lily's post came.

The second I'd like to highlight is that "We also *are not* adding new mods, like, ever." I think this is important, because people always seem to bring up the slippery slope of "well if we mod the game to include sleep clause/freeze clause, what's to stop us from modding out 256 misses/freeze altogether/etc.??" To that I say... we can draw the line wherever we want, and this is where the line is being drawn. Meaning that we are only looking at either keeping the status quo or removing mods, not adding them. So hopefully we can put that argument to rest now.

---

That brings me to the main three points of this post, of what should actually be up for discussion: Luck, Desyncs, and Ubiquitous Clauses

Luck:
This is what I'm going to use to describe Wrap/Partial Trapping. Because many people feel that using a team of Wrap Pokemon is inherently luck-based and thus the strategy should be banned. We've seen teams with Dragonair, Weepinbell, Arbok, Tangela, and maybe more "un-mons" win tournament games at high levels due to Wrap spam. Some people see it as a way to cheese an undeserved victory. Others see it as just part of the game you have to deal with occasionally. We do have a working FIGHT button now which is great as the Wrapper no longer has the unfair advantage that they would have over playing on cart. But still, something needs to be done.

That something is having an official community vote on what to actually do here. Whether that's a ban on all partial trapping moves, a ban on Wrap, a complex ban (such as no more than one Wrap Pokemon on a team), or keeping the status quo, (or something else) this is very clearly something that needs to be addressed, as it is controversial, especially among top-level players. I'm not part of the RBY council so I'm not sure who would vote/how that would be determined, but I think this should probably be top priority out of the things that I'm listing here today.

Desyncs:
This mostly applies to Counter, but can apply to other desyncs such as Psywave and freeze/thaw as well I guess. As mentioned before in this thread, the vote to decide what to do with Counter when it causes a desync was controversial. People were unhappy with how it was run, people were unhappy with who got to vote, etc. It's been like five years since the vote and everything seems to "work" fine. But it's still something that people were/are unhappy with, so I think that we should get a revote on Counter. Like the above paragraphs about Partial Trapping, again, not sure who would vote or how it would be determined but I'd like to see this get a re-vote as well.

As for other desyncs, to be honest with y'all I don't know enough about freeze/thaw to have an informed opinion. (The Psywave zero damage one seems pretty cut and dry though).

Ubiquitous Clauses:
This is Sleep Clause and Freeze Clause. These have been talked about to death recently so I won't belabor the points too much. But like I said above, it seems like these are back on the table, and they're certainly controversial enough that I think we should probably have votes on these too. Removal of Freeze Clause would be easy enough I think. It's the Sleep Clause one that I think there would have to be some more discussion (like the "auto-lose" feature). So yay, more votes!

---

Summary:
All in all, I would love to just put all this discussion to bed. And I think the easiest way to do that is to have community votes on Partial Trapping, Counter, Freeze Clause, and Sleep Clause. I understand that setting up four suspect tests for a metagame like RBY is probably going to be weird, but getting definitive answers beats talking in circles through various threads for years on end. I think priority number one should be partial trapping, followed by desyncs, followed by Freeze/Sleep Clause. Let's make it happen.

Tagging RBY Council yet again (sorry friends, I know I keep annoying y'all about this but I'd like to get this done):
Nails nicole7735 Sceptross Serpi

 

[Melbelle]

we already had a discussion thread on banning wrap and it got near 0 support and all complex solutions (max 1 wrap user) were already shot down. so i think the issue has already been resolved (no action)

i think most ppl would be fine with with a desync/counter revote idk why we dont go ahead and do it

remove freeze clause (doubt this actually has the needed support)

also dont hold votes if the result is already 100% predictable. if sleep/freeze clause do go on the table can just post a new community pulse thread, it its overwhemingly "do nothing" dont bother with a vote. all votes with a predictable outcome do is be ammo against ever suggesting changing the status quo ever again.

 

[Karxrida]

tbh if any Gen could get away with considering the use of the non-mod, lose condition version of Sleep Clause it might be RBY. Encore doesn't exist yet, trapping is different such that you can't be forced to burn PP, and 2 of the tier's main Sleepers run Explosion so they can just blow up if they do run out of PP for their other options. Paralysis spreading is also common enough that you can still burn PP on Sing Chansey or whatever if you really need to and feel like risking it.

While I personally think Freeze Clause Mod shouldn't exist at all on principle, I also acknowledge that Freeze is stupidly powerful in RBY specifically even with the rarity of multiple procs. The data we were presented with in the other thread also isn't sufficient because removing the mod could make fishing for Freezes viable and skew how people play, and thus the data. My only suggestion is to maybe run some tournaments with the mod turned off to collect more data and see how people feel with the safety net gone.

Handling Desyncs boils down to what we do with Counter. If Counter is banned to stop desyncs we can also just ban Psywave (who cares). I also almost said ban Fire moves too to prevent thaws before remembering Moltres is viable for use in OU (and maybe lower tiers care too), so idk there lol. If we don't ban Counter I think you could argue "we modded this one thing to ensure the game was playable due to an obvious bug that literally breaks everything" is a fair compromise and valid exemption.

 

[BigFatMantis]

While Sleep Clause may be in the table for discussion, it’s been made clear that lose conditions are not, and won’t be added. So if we were to modify/eliminate Sleep Clause, it would have to be replaced with either a Sleep moves ban or something else that doesn’t involve lose conditions as, again, it’s been already stated that lose conditions won’t be happening.

 

[GoldCat]

I don't see how "Sleep Clause: Limit one foe put to sleep, unless no other actions are possible" isn't the obvious move here, especially in RBY. Unless I am overlooking something, this is only true if you have one mon left and it has run out of PP on all of its non-Sleep inducing moves. I'm sure we all agree that the Sleep clause is unnecessary in such a case, as putting multiple Pokemon to sleep won't give you an advantage when the game is essentially lost. There was some fuss about greying out moves, but I don't get the issue. It wouldn't be implemented like a Choice lock or Encore, where Struggle can be forced, because then we are right back to a mod. I'm interested in whether there are actual objections, bar that we should leave it as is.

 

[Zarel]

Hide

FIGHT! button:
Ugh, this is such a long post already and I was going to link to a post that explains this better than I could but it seems to have been deleted? Anyway, this is another thing that has buffed partial-trapping moves and I think that this should be implemented as to not have that be the case. Basically, when you click a partial-trapping move (say, Wrap), in-game you don't know when the move ends necessarily. You click the "FIGHT!" button and if the move is continuing, you're locked in. You only know that the move is over if it's already hit five times or if your four moves show up again. On Showdown, however, you always know whether or not you're locked in with the way partial-trapping moves are currently implemented. This means that it's easier for the player using the partial-trapping move to position via switching because they always know whether they're locked in or not.

I feel like I'm not explaining this very well, but just know that as it's currently implemented, players using partial-trapping moves have an advantage on Showdown as opposed to if they were using the move in-game. This is something that I feel like has been approved to be implemented already, but idk if there's record of that anywhere on forums.

phoopes' suggestion: Implement the FIGHT! button. Please. I'm tired of hearing about how busted Wrap is every few weeks lol.

As one of the few people who has tried implementing the FIGHT! button, this is much easier said than done. Even assuming the red tape has been jumped through, the implementation of this is very difficult and causes about a billion bugs including desyncs and server crashes (I tried to bugfix this for a solid week). Without more experienced PS programmers, all of which seem to be coding other more important things duty and have been for a long time, where it seems nobody cares enough to invest the massive amount of time and effort into making sure this works properly, it isn't getting done.

Bonus: Although the correct implementation of the FIGHT! button would be a nerf to wrap, I believe that this just makes the strategy even more lame, heavily increasing the guesswork in common wrap pivoting interactions, and wouldn't make it more fun for either side. The qualms people have about staying in and wrapping mons to death don't change at all, and the skillful* playing around the pivoting is dumber to play with.

fight button should have, like, x100 as much priority as anything else in this thread. we are playing with a completely farcical version of partial trapping moves, where the benefit is given to the user instead of the 'victim', it's just completely unlike the actual cartridge gameplay for 0 actual policy reason - it is a fault of the current simulator implementation and nothing else

"you're being dramatic" no i'm fucking not, 3 days ago this mattered in an SPL semifinal lol
View attachment 619069

cool thread, down to revote counter and whatever, but the entire community really should be worrying about uncontroversially bad things (ie lack of fight button) rather than rehashing stuff that is just matter of opinion for the millionth time

Am I going crazy? Fight button was fixed (by me and HiZo) two weeks before this thread was even posted.

Mar 8 → Wrap mechanics fixed
https://github.com/smogon/pokemon-showdown/pull/10936

Mar 11 → While waiting for RBY council to decide on UI, I just pushed the UI the most people seemed to prefer
https://github.com/smogon/pokemon-showdown-client/pull/2327

(As far as I know, RBY council is still deliberating on the UI, but mostly seems to prefer the one I pushed.)

Especially Amaranth, what's this about a tour game with Wrap working incorrectly on Mar 22? Was Smogtours just on a really old sim version or something?

edit: oh, this thread was posted 2024, I got confused by the recent posts, lol nvm thanks everyone you've been great

 

[Melbelle]

greying out moves

i dont like this solution much since this is a solution that is only preferable since we are on a sim. this would effectively translate to "using a sleep move, regardless of the outcome, is a loss" on cart which is needlessly strict. the only reason a more strict rule would be chosen is because we can force it on a simulator, rather than it actually being a good cart solution to sleep clause. it's making rules with the simulator in mind first, rather than the cartridge, spun to sound like it's in the name of cart accuracy.

i'd rather we made rules with rby cartridge link battles in mind then applied it to the simulator, rather than make rules specifically designed around the simulator and ignoring the implications it'd have on cartridge play. it's questionable if cartridge accuracy via rules that are good on the simulator, but bogus on the cartridge, is true cart accuracy.

im not really a fan of any solution besides a full sleep moves ban or lose conditions. if neither of these are on the tablet whatsoever, i'd prefer to keep the status quo instead of greying out moves.

if we aren't going for loss conditions or a sleep ban i'd rather just focus on the clause that is cart inaccurate, no reason to actually exist, and very easy to fix (freeze clause). literally all we need to do to fix it is... just remove it. at least sleep clause has the justification that sleep moves are broken when unrestricted. there is little reason to argue for a cart accurate sleep clause while this heinous clause is still around. so what if sleep is cart accurate if ice beam and blizzard aren't?

 

[GoldCat]

this would effectively translate to "using a sleep move, regardless of the outcome, is a loss" on cart which is needlessly strict. the only reason a more strict rule would be chosen is because we can force it on a simulator, rather than it actually being a good cart solution to sleep clause. it's making rules with the simulator in mind first, rather than the cartridge, spun to sound like it's in the name of cart accuracy.

It wouldn't because the move is only greyed out when the Sleep clause can be intentionally and freely broken. Greying out the moves is purely QoL and the simplest implementation. The move can be clickable but tainted red, have an "Are you sure?" pop-up, or "Sleep clause is active" status, where weather turns are in later gens. The point is that there is no way to force a loss through breaking the Sleep clause. I can attest as someone who played in an in-game 6v6 competitive community that this is how Pokemon is played on cart with Sleep clause. If you would Encore your opponent's mon into a Sleep move to break Sleep clause, and then go "GG. Shake my hand, you broke Sleep clause, forfeit the game.". You would be laughed at and called out for it. You are still disqualified if you break the Sleep clause; it is just that it's always a voluntary risk on the player's part. We want to avoid any forced losses, which the revised Sleep clause achieves. The greying out of moves smoothes things out and removes any honest mistakes, but again, it isn't the only way to implement it.

 

[Melbelle]

Greying out the moves is purely QoL and the simplest implementation.

It's not, because:

You are still disqualified if you break the Sleep clause; it is just that it's always a voluntary risk on the player's part.

On cartridge you can take that voluntary risk. If the cartridge rule is voluntary risks can be taken and the simulator rule is that you are not allowed to take risks, the simulator and carts' rules differ, this is a different rule, not a QoL feature.

I have no clue why you said shit about encore since I never said anything about encoring a Pokemon into using sleep moves in RBY.

EDIT: and to clarify, there ARE scenarios you may take the risk and click a sleep move if it could violate clause (opponent imminently going to wake, pp stalling by using a sleep move vs a paralyzed pokemon). These scenarios in simulators "can't click the sleep move" and cartridges "you can risk it" differ. This is far from a pure QoL feature when there are turns where it may be viable to risk breaking the clause and cartridge allows it, and PS doesn't.
If the simulator enforces a different rule to cartridge, I'd argue that strays from cart accuracy even if it doesn't directly contradict how moves function, like sleep clause mod causing sleep moves to fail.

The move can be clickable but tainted red, have an "Are you sure?" pop-up

I would agree with such an implementation, if it also comes with a lose condition if you decide to risk it. I believe the greyed out button was made to prevent this though. This cleanly solves the issue of missclicks (unless you missclick twice) and would have parity with cartridge's "violate sleep clause and you lose"; which making the sleep moves grey and unclickable does NOT do.

 

[GoldCat]

On cartridge you can take that voluntary risk. If the cartridge rule is voluntary risks can be taken and the simulator rule is that you are not allowed to take risks, the simulator and carts' rules differ, this is a different rule, not a QoL feature.

No, the rules would be the same on PS! and cart. Look at Mega Rayquaza and Dynamax to get the idea. In-game, the button to Mega Evolve Rayquaza or Dynamax is always there. You can click it to your heart's desire, seeing it is unselected when you pick your move. However, on PS!, you don't have the option to press the button. The risk of having the button to Dynamax selected is never presented to you, but that doesn't change the ruling on the simulator from "Dynamax is banned" to "You cannot click the button to Dynamax". Rather than have little Timmy lose the game because he Mega Evolved his Rayquaza in SM Ubers, we have the option removed for QoL. This example is analogous and not a perfect fit, but I hope it shows what I'm getting at. Unlike breaking the Mega Rayquaza and Dynamax clauses, there are competitive reasons to risk breaking the Sleep clause, like resleeping or clicking a Sleep move into an asleep Natural Cure mon on the predicted switch. But, when the risk of a wrong prediction (or a Serence Grace Blissey building error) is an automatic forfeit, it is worth questioning it.

Greying out the moves (if done right) is consistent with other PS! implementations and is a fair way to implement the new Sleep clause. But, I'm not hung up on it or necessarily think it is the way to go. It's not what interests me in this discussion.

I have no clue why you said shit about encore since I never said anything about encoring a Pokemon into using sleep moves in RBY.

It was an example not directed at you. Encore isn't in RBY.

 

[BigFatMantis]

im not really a fan of any solution besides a full sleep moves ban or lose conditions. if neither of these are on the tablet whatsoever, i'd prefer to keep the status quo instead of greying out moves.

FWIW I don’t recall ever seeing someone say a full sleep moves ban was off the table, at least from a tiering perspective. It just doesn’t seem to have much support is all. Only Lose Conditions seemed to be off the table entirely and not worth discussing, but if there was enough support for a full sleep moves ban it’d be possible to go that route.

 

[Melbelle]

FWIW I don’t recall ever seeing someone say a full sleep moves ban was off the table, at least from a tiering perspective.

It's not off the table as in tiering leaders saying they won't allow it, but I know the playerbase would not allow it. It's probably for the better to have sleep around.

there are competitive reasons to risk breaking the Sleep clause, like resleeping or clicking a Sleep move into an asleep Natural Cure mon on the predicted switch.

I still don't like this because of this, on cartridge they wouldn't prevent me from clicking the sleep move and risking it but on PS the implementation is either to not give me the option to risk it or adding a lose condition (which seems unlikely to be allowed anytime soon).

The difference here with the Mega-Rayquaza comparison is that mega evolving it under any circumstance in Ubers is a loss, there is zero competitive reason to do it ever. Since sleep has competitive reasons I believe the only proper cart accurate rules is to add a lose condition or an outright ban. I get the idea behind greying out moves preventing lose conditions, and I get why lose conditions aren't ideal, but I'm just not satisfied unless the rule can have complete parity with cartridge.

I think we see eye to eye on this not being a 100% "proper" solution due to competitive reasons you may risk activating the clause, just that I believe we should be able to have full cart parity rather than making the clause anything but causing sleep moves to fail. Nothing is technically mechanically inaccurate, just the rules on cart vs sim only line up 99.9% of the time instead of 100% of the time is something I'm personally not fond of if we do decide to touch the sleep clause. Should go all the way or don't change anything.

If anything I think a full sleep ban is the right way to go if we want cart accuracy, broken moves get banned not restricted, But I also believe sleep has been a good thing for the RBY meta and few people would be on board to give it up after so long just because melaniebelanie on smogon dot com says banning it gets us closer to cart accuracy. I'm willing to give it up if it lets us call RBY cart accurate but I also know there's no way in hell there will be the support for it. So between doing nothing or implementing a clause that is only 99.9% cart accurate, I'd rather just do nothing.

Can just continue to complain about freeze clause being a mod that just should not exist in any tier. No way we'll make progress on sleep clause rework if we can't even get freeze clause out of the game. There is zero reason to have a "get unlucky less" clause if we're not going to mod out the other forms of bad luck. It's bad enough RBY ended up sticking with it but it's completely inane ADV and DPP get to complain about Ice Punch Jirachi to justify modding game mechhanics.

 

[Zarel]

Okay, let me first be very clear about what I personally would like here. Let's call this Sleep Choice Clause.

"If at least one pokemon on the opposing team is asleep at the time of move selection, you cannot choose sleep moves if you have any other choice (move or switch) available."​

Implementation details: On sim, the move will be disabled. On cart, choosing a sleep move in this situation will result in an auto-loss (whether or not it succeeds).

Competitive implications: This is a nerf to sleep, since you won't be able to spam a sleep move hoping to catch an opponent on the turn it wakes. This is less of a nerf than outright banning sleep, so I hope this is a compromise everyone can be happy with.

It's a relatively complex ban, but only slightly more complex than Sleep Clause Mod itself, while being cart-accurate.

i dont like this solution much since this is a solution that is only preferable since we are on a sim. this would effectively translate to "using a sleep move, regardless of the outcome, is a loss" on cart which is needlessly strict. the only reason a more strict rule would be chosen is because we can force it on a simulator, rather than it actually being a good cart solution to sleep clause. it's making rules with the simulator in mind first, rather than the cartridge, spun to sound like it's in the name of cart accuracy.

I don't understand this viewpoint. I think "a misclick on cart is an autoloss" is still better than "OU is entirely unplayable on cart". This proposal is fully cart-accurate, exactly like Mega Rayquaza Clause or Dynamax Clause or any other "this option is disabled on-sim, which will be implemented on-cart by causing an autoloss if you choose it" clause.

 

[Melbelle]

This proposal is fully cart-accurate

Let me try to explain it:

which will be implemented on-cart by causing an autoloss if you choose it" clause

I don't see why you would have this rule on cartridge. Why would choosing a sleep move be the condition to lose? Why would the condition not be only when you actually violate the clause (put 2 Pokemon to sleep). The rule seems to only be preferred because it makes implementing it on the simulator easier, not because it's the rule that makes sense for cartridge play.

It's less that it's not cart accurate, but a rule designed with sim play in mind rather than cart play.

 

[Zarel]

Let me try to explain it:

I don't see why you would have this rule on cartridge. Why would choosing a sleep move be the condition to lose? Why would the condition not be only when you actually violate the clause (put 2 Pokemon to sleep). The rule seems to only be preferred because it makes implementing it on the simulator easier, not because it's the rule that makes sense for cartridge play.

It's less that it's not cart accurate, but a rule designed with sim play in mind rather than cart play.

Do you think Sleep Clause Mod, which can't be playable on cart at all, is not designed with sim play in mind? Like I sort of get where you're coming from, but I just don't feel like it has any persuasive value when the alternative is something completely impossible on cart.

That said, I also think it makes sense for cartridge play. For the same reason as on sim, it makes sense to disincentivize strategies that risk an autoloss, by banning taking the risk in the first place. It would also be silly to ban OHKO moves by saying "you can use OHKO moves and it's fine if they miss, so you can use them to power up Stomping Tantrum, but you autolose if they hit", rather than just "you can't use OHKO moves".

 

[Melbelle]

Do you think Sleep Clause Mod, which can't be playable on cart at all, is not designed with sim play in mind? Like I sort of get where you're coming from, but I just don't feel like it has any persuasive value when the alternative is something completely impossible on cart.

Of course it's made with sim play in mind.
My perspective is basically if we change anything at all we should just make it fully accurate to cart rules, and that the ideal cart rule for sleep clause is not disallowing selecting the move. I dislike the status quo but see anything besides outright move bans or lose conditions more of a half-assed solution and we should just keep the status quo instead of half ass cart accuracy.

That said, I also think it makes sense for cartridge play. For the same reason as on sim, it makes sense to disincentivize strategies that risk an autoloss, by banning taking the risk in the first place. It would also be silly to ban OHKO moves by saying "you can use OHKO moves and it's fine if they miss, so you can use them to power up Stomping Tantrum, but you autolose if they hit", rather than just "you can't use OHKO moves".

I don't really think move bans and bans on player choice mid-game are really comparable like this. Technically I think bringing banned moves and never using them (not just missing them) should be allowed but this is easily a much more obvious form of a QoL feature than making rules around mid-game play. I don't see why you'd choose to DQ a player for using a sleep move even if it fails to actually put an opposing Pokemon to sleep if we assume cartridge play. I really just dont think disallowing sleep move usage during a game under certain conditions and allowing OHKOs "if the miss" are really comparable at all.

I'm a little skeptical of the idea sleep should get an exception because it is a broken move and rules around how you play the game seem a bit lame. But I also know asking RBY to ban sleep will never go through. So yeah, I'd rather keep the status quo of the mod over what I think are bad solutions. As it stands it seems lose conditions will never happen and sleep ban won't either though.
The alternative is worse, but it's also the status quo. Might as well do nothing if the proper solutions are not on the table

 

[Shaymin Sky]

I don't really think move bans and bans on player choice mid-game are really comparable like this. Technically I think bringing banned moves and never using them (not just missing them) should be allowed but this is easily a much more obvious form of a QoL feature than making rules around mid-game play. I don't see why you'd choose to DQ a player for using a sleep move even if it fails to actually put an opposing Pokemon to sleep if we assume cartridge play. I really just dont think disallowing sleep move usage during a game under certain conditions and allowing OHKOs "if the miss" are really comparable at all.

I disagree. You'd disqualify a player using a move that could activate sleep even if it doesn't work for a few reasons but this first is that not doing so wouldn't be fair. If someone uses Sleep Powder with a Pokemon already asleep on the opposing side but misses and isn't DQ, but someone else in the same situation uses it and it lands getting them DQ'd that's not a particularly fair rule.

In addition it's not intended for you to go for these moves with sleep clause in place, so when you go them where the clause would activate and lets say the move misses, it opens up for situations that aren't really supposed to happen to begin with. Lets say there's a situation where you don't want to immediately kill the opponent for whatever reason, and you have 3 attacking moves with sleep powder as a last move but the opponent already has a Pokemon asleep. A real play with the idea of "if it doesn't work no DQ" would be to sleep powder and hope for miss, again this isn't competitive and with the given rules its not a situation a player should expect in any way. There's too much variance without a hard rule in a game like Pokemon and I think "going for a move that can cause sleep while the opponent already has a pokemon slept" is a pretty well defined way of doing it, adding an exception to misses will cause some messy situations and introduces a lot of luck outright.

Interesting thing to note here but with that proposal of how to define sleep clause, Sneasler could be tested in OU again (since if you roll sleep you cannot use dire claw again until that Pokemon wakes up) but that's besides the point and not relevant, I just thought that was funny to note lol.

 

[Melbelle]

adding an exception to misses will cause some messy situations and introduces a lot of luck outright.

Idk I really fail to see why not to allow people to risk it if we're trying to justify cartridge rules than to disallow it outright besides the fact greying out moves on sim means no lose conditions.
If I'm an Chansey and the opposing Exeggutor is 100% waking up the next turn, I think it's more fair to just allow the risk to be taken..
I somewhat get the perspective but I still believe this is not a preferable rule. I'll potentially take back saying the status quo is better, but I would dislike this solution. Any movement towards cart accuracy is likely a good thing even if its something i don't quite like. Just doesn't quite sit well with me to ban using the move because it could end in a DQ, instead of just letting players take the risk.

I think you probably get where I'm coming from even if you don't agree

In addition it's not intended for you to go for these moves with sleep clause in place

I disagree, the intention of sleep clause is to prevent 2+ pokemon from falling asleep, not bar usage.

 

[Sabelette]

Also, its not like two paralyzed Chanseys PP stalling with Sing is uncommon, I see no reason not to let people click it and risk losing the game. This feels like a solution that's more convoluted than necessary because people complain about the idea of a loss condition. We've had tournaments run in formats like Nintendo Cup 1997 where we have to implement a manual losecon. Sleep clause doesn't exist natively in NC1997, but the ruleset for the official tournament, which was run on cartridge Red and Green, was "you cannot put 2 foes to sleep." Its a Nintendo official metagame so implementing the sleep clause mod would be stupid, so we simply told players "if you do this you lose," and we had very few problems enforcing this over the course of a fairly large double elim tournament. Like, one match had confusion over this and then people got the idea immediately. The format is also currently in week 4 of a teamtour with zero incidents of people messing this up. And that's a more restrictive version, too, where if the opponent clicks Rest you can't put anything else to sleep afterward or you lose! I just do not buy that a losecon is too complicated or unfun or whatever and I think if we have to make convoluted solutions around when you may or may not click one of your moves because losecons are not allowed, then we may as well just leave the mod in place.

As an aside, I would rather see us just pick one of "mod the game more to make it more competitive (remove 256, remove freeze)" or "unmod the game (ban Counter, remove Freeze Clause, implement cart-accurate Sleep Clause)" than keep going back and forth on these things constantly. I feel like whatever changes we will land on will inevitably end up being worse than what we have now because the only proposals that don't get shot down by people over our heads are half-measures and odd compromises.

 

[BigFatMantis]

Also, its not like two paralyzed Chanseys PP stalling with Sing is uncommon, I see no reason not to let people click it and risk losing the game. This feels like a solution that's more convoluted than necessary because people complain about the idea of a loss condition. We've had tournaments run in formats like Nintendo Cup 1997 where we have to implement a manual losecon. Sleep clause doesn't exist natively in NC1997, but the ruleset for the official tournament, which was run on cartridge Red and Green, was "you cannot put 2 foes to sleep." Its a Nintendo official metagame so implementing the sleep clause mod would be stupid, so we simply told players "if you do this you lose," and we had very few problems enforcing this over the course of a fairly large double elim tournament. Like, one match had confusion over this and then people got the idea immediately. The format is also currently in week 4 of a teamtour with zero incidents of people messing this up. And that's a more restrictive version, too, where if the opponent clicks Rest you can't put anything else to sleep afterward or you lose! I just do not buy that a losecon is too complicated or unfun or whatever and I think if we have to make convoluted solutions around when you may or may not click one of your moves because losecons are not allowed, then we may as well just leave the mod in place.

As an aside, I would rather see us just pick one of "mod the game more to make it more competitive (remove 256, remove freeze)" or "unmod the game (ban Counter, remove Freeze Clause, implement cart-accurate Sleep Clause)" than keep going back and forth on these things constantly. I feel like whatever changes we will land on will inevitably end up being worse than what we have now because the only proposals that don't get shot down by people over our heads are half-measures and odd compromises.

It’s been stated that no additional mods will be considered to add, so the whole “mod the game further” aspect is never going to happen. The only things to really discuss as I see it are:

Eliminate Sleep Clause and ban Sleep moves

Change Sleep Clause to what Zarel said above re: disabling moves being clicked to make it more cart accurate

Keep Sleep Clause as is

Remove Freeze Clause

I don’t think anything else is realistically going to happen at all but if people could discuss or prefer some of these points then it’s possible something could change.

 

[Shaymin Sky]

I disagree, the intention of sleep clause is to prevent 2+ pokemon from falling asleep, not bar usage.

What I said did not say bar usage or imply trying to reduce the usage of sleep, I'm saying we get rid of random variance by making it so going for an option that would activate sleep clause would DQ you. I literally don't comprehend why you would allow random chance to a clause for a competitive game. Pokemon isn't a 100% competitive game we all know that but the point of clauses and rules is to remove brokenness and that extends to luck based things like sleep, so why would you remove an element of RNG to then say "hey if you don't activate it by luck then you won't actually automatically lose". You're phrasing it incorrectly, going for sleep powder hoping to miss is less so risk and more so random chance which is that not the point of the clause we added to the game lol?

 

[Sabelette]

Lots of things have "been stated" and later walked back, but ultimately the only two outcomes that are going to come of this are that either nothing happens or we make RBY a worse game with some half-measure compromise that nobody prefers to what we have now, whether they're pro or anti modding - go all the way in one direction or don't do anything